| ▲ | echelon 4 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm not interested in adopting an inferior closed source weight from a geopolitical rival. The open source weights argument was the one thing China had going and that I was seriously cheering them on for. They could have been our saviors and disrupted the US tech giants - and if it was open, I'd have welcomed it. Now they show their true colors. They want to train models on our engineering to replace us, while simultaneously giving nothing back? No thanks. I'd rather fund the shitty US hyperscalers. At least that leads to jobs here. If there's a company willing develop and foster large scale weights in the open, I'll adopt their tooling 100%. It doesn't matter if they're a year behind. Just do it open and build an entire ecosystem on top of it. The re-AOLization of the internet into thin clients is bullshit, and all it takes is one player to buck the rules to topple the whole house of cards. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Zetaphor 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> I'm not interested in adopting an inferior closed source weight from a geopolitical rival. The open source weights argument was the one thing China had going and that I was seriously cheering them on for. They could have been our saviors and disrupted the US tech giants - and if it was open, I'd have welcomed it. Qwen is not the only Chinese lab, and the others have shown no change in their commitment to open source. Allegedly Qwen hasn't either if their recent statements are to be believed. They're just hoping to capture market share with *-claw customers before releasing an open weights version. We'll have to wait and see how before they decide to release that. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | zozbot234 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> I'm not interested in adopting an inferior closed weights model from a geopolitical rival. That's a very reasonable stance. It doesn't change the fact that we do have plenty of local models (up to and including Qwen 3.5) that are still quite useful. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | evilduck 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This is not even the first closed weights Qwen model. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | benatkin 35 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> I'm not interested in adopting an inferior closed source weight from a geopolitical rival. I'm USian myself, but I don't think the site should be very US-centric. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | cmrdporcupine 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Whereas I as a Canadian am absolutely eager to see a serious competitor from a rival to the US because sending money south to Anthropic and OpenAI who think it's ok to spy on (or worse) their non-American customers, and are headquartered in a country that is trying to crush my country's economy, interfere in our domestic politics, and put us out of work and making threats on political allies. I'd prefer them to be open weight, but I'd love to sub a decent competitive coding plan from a European or Chinese provider. Right now they're not quite there. If closing it and charging for it brings them closer to competitive, that's ok. If the US tech and AI industry long term wants customers and a broad market outside of their own domestic base, they need to reconsider who they are bending the knee to, and how they are defining their policies in relation to the Trump administration. Bring on the Chinese competition. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||