Hacker News Reader

Comment by tancop | Hacker News Reader

Sam and Dario came from the EA-rationalist space. Their ultimate goal is to create an all powerful ASI before anyone else does and make sure no one can do it again. Of course it will be aligned, to their interests as a group and their moral philosophy.

In real life they "just" want to capture the US economy, replace most workers with AI, become trillionaires, then control the world by making ClaudeGPT influence peoples opinions and write backdoors into code. And they need to get open models banned in the process.

The Chinese just want to make money and beat America. Mistral and BFL want to prove Europe can still innovate. They don't have evil goals so they're not evil people.

View on HN

"The Chinese just want to make money and beat America. They don't have evil goals so they're not evil people."

They straight up censored Kylian Mbappe a few days ago for cracking a joke about Mao Zedong. And very much all the models developed by China would have to conform with Chinese government's viewpoint, including censorship and such. Do you truly believe that they are not evil, or they will not ever be evil?

All models are inherently biased by their creators, intentionally and unintentionally. The only thing we can do to mitigate this, is to keep the models and the ecosystem as open and as interchangeable as possible. This must be the prime directive for humanity right now if we don't want to fall into some silicon valley tech mogul cultist dystopia. SamA and Dario work directly against that future. They are therefore the most imminent threat to humanity.

I'm at the point I don't care. China models that propagandize openly is better than closed models that censor and restrict innovation.

If open AI wants to be taken seriously it needs to live up to its name.

Anthropic won't ever change.

So like MBA players taking a knee ;)

To me they are not inherently more or less "evil" than other governments. sure they are conducting genocide in Xinjiang, so did we and are still doing in other parts of the world, and it's terrible, I'm not condoning any of it, regardless of who carries it out and where. We also do censorship and spying on our citizens.

When it comes to what is directly connected to the issues around LLMs and the models themselves they are doing what we refuse to do, release the weight, keep releasing the weight (we need to be weary of this part) and build an ecosystem where whoever has the resources to train the models is actually sharing them.

it seems to mirror the old question between closed and open source code, it's the whole ecosystem around it that will determine how things go at the social and economical level, I want the models weights.

Like it or not, thats plain whatabouttism you are doing, on top of false equivalency.

As an European I care much more about somebody trying to properly enslave me and all my kids eternally while taking away even the means to feed them, compared to not allowing me to criticize their leadership. Also, criticizing trump means if I ever made the wrong decision to travel to US, I can expect a lot of bad things on the border, also thanks to posts highly critical to current US government I am making here so your argument is invalid also in that regard.

If thats same for you, well... we have different values to say politely. I've grown up 'enslaved' by soviets behind iron curtain (when you cannot travel, study and are forbidden to have a decent life, when speaking up your whle family is punished, and getting murdered if trying to escape elsewhere, thats pretty close to traditional slavery) so I have a bit different viewpoint on these matters.

No, my argument is that models from China cannot be blindly trusted, because of the regulatory and political constraints all Chinese companies must conform to. If your argument is "I don't care about where LLM models came from, as long as they do my job", then any self-hosted GPT OSS model would suffice.

Going from memory, but in an old Bioware game called jade empire, you became a very competent warrior. At some point in the game, you learn that your old master manipulated you to fight his enemies and that he is quite the villain himself. As you fight him, your learn that he deliberately crippled your technique in subtle ways so as to have an advantage over you - should he ever need it.

I think the difference is - Chinese labs overwhelmingly submit papers, discuss techniques, ship open weights models.

If they decided to cut anyone off, it becomes gradual, as their tech moves on.

If a certain orange monkey decides his “super” intelligence is a negotiation leverage, the switch can be flipped and its dependents left high and dry.

If you fail to see the difference that’s on you.

gnosh.ai (see https://gnosh.ai/head-to-head.html for visual demonstration of "functional" AI -- no more compaction; typed thoughts and memory.

the cat is out of the bag now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com