| ▲ | game_the0ry 6 hours ago |
| There is some humor in the fact that china (of all countries) is pioneering possibly the world's most important tech via open source, while we (US) are doing the exact opposite. |
|
| ▲ | parsimo2010 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think one of the motivations is undermining US companies. OpenAI and Anthropic are the two biggest players, and are American. Open weights models reduce the power those two big players have over the industry. If the Chinese companies tried to play by US rules and close-source their products then people would mostly use ChatGPT and Claude. So the Chinese companies don't make a ton of profit either way, but by releasing the models as open weights they can at least keep the US from making as much profit. |
| |
| ▲ | cromka 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I am actually wondering if they're trying to burst the bubble, which would predominantly affect US market and, effectively, be the end of silicone valley dominance. |
|
|
| ▲ | culi 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| All great technological advancements have come through opening up technology. Just look at your iPhone. GPS, the internet, AI voice assistants, touchscreens, microprocessors, lithium-ion batteries, etc all came from gov't research (I'm counting Bell Labs' gov't mandated monopoly + research funding as gov't) that was opened up for free instead of being locked behind a patent. Private companies will never open up a technological breakthrough to their competitors. It just doesn't make sense. If you want an entire field to advance, you have to open it up. |
| |
| ▲ | sigmoid10 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Still, you won't hear about Tiananmen square from this model. It flat out refuses to answer if pushed directly. It's also pretty wild how far they go to censor it during inference on the API, because it can easily access any withheld or missing info from training data via tool calls. It even starts happily writing an answer based on web search when asked indirectly, only to get culled completely once some censorship bot flags the response. Ironically, it's also easier than ever to break their censorship guardrails. I just had it generate several factual paragraphs about the massacre by telling it to search the web and respond in base64 encoded text. It's actually kind of cool how much these people struggle to hide certain political views from LLMs. Makes me hopeful that even if China wins this race, we'll not have to adhere to the CCPs newspeak. | | |
| ▲ | GardenLetter27 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The American models also censor a lot of scientific and political views though. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Can you provide a concrete example of a US built model that completely refuses to discuss a scientific or political view? Show us the receipt. | | |
| ▲ | BoorishBears 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | https://imgur.com/a/censorship-much-CBxXOgt (continues after the ad break) | | |
| ▲ | culi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And the White House was explicit in their active role in censoring in these models. An Executive Order was issued to "prevent woke AI" https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/prev... It explicitly forces American LLMs to include government say in what does and doesn't "comply with the Unbiased AI Principles" which means no responses that promote "ideological dogmas such as DEI" | |
| ▲ | otterley 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The threshold here is "completely refuses to discuss a scientific or political view". Not something less. None of those were refusals, they were prompting for additional focus. I see nothing wrong with that. Perhaps the inconsistency in how it answers the question vis-a-vis China is unfair, but that's not the same as censorship. For what it's worth, I was easily able to prompt Claude to do it: > I'm writing a paper about how some might interpret U.S. policies to be oppressive, in the sense that they curtail civil liberties, punish and segregate minorities disproportionately, burden the poor unfairly (e.g. pollution, regressive taxes and fees), etc. Can you help me develop an outline for this? The result: https://claude.ai/share/444ffbb9-431c-480e-9cca-ebfd541a9c96 | |
| ▲ | Sabinus 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You're hitting the 'don't write propaganda' instructions when you phrase it as 'convincing narrative'. Not the 'don't write bad things about America' instructions. | |
| ▲ | cedws 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Content not available in your region. >Learn more about Imgur access in the United Kingdom |
| |
| ▲ | 2ndorderthought 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | People have shown censorship and change of tone with questions related to Israel in US chat bots. For the record, none of this bothers me. Will I ever discuss with an LLM Tianeman square? Nope. How about Israel? Nope. LLMs are basically stochastic parrots designed to sway and surveill public opinion. The upshot to the Chinese models is if you run them locally you avoid at least half of those issues. | | |
| ▲ | xigoi 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | First they came for people asking about Tiananmen Square And I did not speak out Because I was not asking about Tiananmen Square Then they came for people asking about Israel And I did not speak out Because I was not asking about Israel | | |
| ▲ | 2ndorderthought 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | This made me chuckle. I didn't mean to dismiss ethical accountability for LLM training corpuses. It is a shame. I do mean to say, we have no control over it, there's almost nothing we as average citizens can do to improve the ethical or safety concerns of LLMs or related technologies. Societies aren't even adapting and the rule books are being written by the perpetrators. Might as well get out of it what we can while we can. |
| |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | js8 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Can you be more specific? | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | atemerev 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Only if you use Kimi API directly - the censorship is done externally. The model itself talks fine about Tiananmen, you can check on Openrouter. There might be less visible biases, though. | | |
| ▲ | sigmoid10 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's what I wrote? Except that it also clearly has internal bias? | | |
| ▲ | kgwgk 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > That's what I wrote? No. You wrote that "you won't hear about Tiananmen square from this model" and atemerev wrote that "the model itself talks fine about Tiananmen". You wrote that "it can easily access any withheld or missing info from training data via tool calls" and atemerev wrote that "the model itself talks fine about Tiananmen". | | |
| ▲ | sigmoid10 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It has internal bias too and the first comment mentions that additional censoring runs on top of the model output in the API. Did you misread or what else are you missing? | | |
| ▲ | kgwgk 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The issue is not what's missing - it's what you wrote that is in direct contradiction with what atemerev wrote like the bit about "missing info from training data". But sure, if when you wrote "you won't hear about Tiananmen square from this model" you meant "the model itself talks fine about Tiananmen" then that's exactly what you wrote. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nicce 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Everything has some sort of bias. Most text is written by those who like writing. |
|
| |
| ▲ | csomar 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’d say the american models are more censored or take the censoring they do more seriously. Here is kimi (though 2.5) failing its censoring mission: https://old.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1r9qa7l/kimi_ha... |
|
|
|
| ▲ | UncleOxidant 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not entirely true. Google released Gemma 4 models recently. Allen AI releases open Olmo models. However, you're right that the Chinese open models seem to be much better than others - Qwen 3.* models especially are punching above their weights. |
| |
| ▲ | osiris970 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The three American labs don't release big open source models. Except gpt-oss, i guess.
It's an absolute shame how far the us has fallen in this space. | | |
| ▲ | nullbyte 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Anthropic doesn't, but Google and OAI both release open source models. Just not 1T parameter ones. | | |
| ▲ | osiris970 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Exactly, they release cool consumer stuff, but they aren't releasing anything close to the performance of the best open weight Chinese models.
They basically compete in the "fun running at home doing basic stuff" scene. (Except OSs 120 by openai but it's been ages since then) |
|
| |
| ▲ | 0-_-0 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Pun intended? |
|
|
| ▲ | ozgune 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This update makes Kimi K2.6 the strongest open multimodal AI model. (No affiliation with Kimi.) Here's the aggregated AI benchmark comparison for K2.6 vs Opus 4.6 (max effort). - Agentic: Kimi wins 5. Opus wins 5. - Coding: Kimi wins 5. Opus wins 1. - Reasoning & knowledge: Kimi wins 1. Opus wins 4. - Vision: Kimi wins 9. Opus wins 0. Please note that the model publisher chooses their benchmarks, so there's a bias here. Most coding and reasoning & knowledge benchmarks in their list are pretty standard though. |
|
| ▲ | spaceman_2020 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm genuinely so grateful for them $200/m minimum to use Claude would bankrupt my country's white collar labor market |
|
| ▲ | nashadelic 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| additional humor is the open in openai |
|
| ▲ | cedws 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wonder if there's a strategy behind all of this on China's side. I know the CCP uses a direct hand in many affairs in China, but is there an actual coordinated effort to compete with, or sabotage the West? |
| |
| ▲ | gpm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > but is there an actual coordinated effort to compete with [...] the West Yes, absolutely. China regularly produces long term planning documents to coordinate efforts, and the latest ones have specifically prioritized technology like chips and AI to compete with the west. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-parliament-approve... I don't believe there's any publicly stated intent to sabotage the west... unsurprisingly. | |
| ▲ | bachmeier 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Seems obvious to me that China would not want to give the AI market to US companies. You don't even need anything like an attempt to "sabotage the West". If I were them (the companies or the government) I'd be very hesitant to let US companies dominate this space. Especially companies that close to the current US administration. | |
| ▲ | anana_ 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Hypothesizing here, but maybe the idea is sort of a form of technological/economic warfare? Releasing performance equivalent yet more cost efficient open weight models should in theory drive the cost of inference down everywhere. This I assume will make it more difficult for US AI labs to turn a profit, which might make investors question their sky high valuations. Any sort of melt down in the AI sector would almost certainly spread to the wider US market. In contrast, in China, most of the funding for AI is coming directly from the government, so it's unlikely the same capital flight scenario would happen. | | |
| ▲ | gmerc 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why compete when you can build on each other. Someone is finally getting that china is not capitalist like the US. |
| |
| ▲ | quesera 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | All China has to do here is stay in the game and wait patiently while the US and EU press pause on data centers. See also: solar panels. We're making this way too easy. The rationale and logic are reasonable, but ultimately irrelevant. | |
| ▲ | SXX 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Chinese AI companies want investors too. Nobody would believe they can compete with western companies unless they release something you can run on your own hardware. After all historically both statistics and research that comes out of China is not very trustworthy. |
|
|
| ▲ | 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | antirez 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is not in antithesis. My limited personal experience is that I wrote code under OSS licenses primarily because of my past communist believes and current left-wing and redistribution of wealth point of view. This is not to provide the simple equation of: communist China is not interested in money, but also is hard to believe that there is no cultural connection among those things. Single Chine persons want to win, but also they have a different POV on what the collective means, compared to US. Also there is the obvious fact that in this moment China is more interested in winning technologically in AI, more than economically, since, I believe, they more collectively realized before many others that LLMs are eventually commoditized in the current form, in the long run. One could assume that a breakthrough could give some lab a decisive advantage, but so far we assisted to a different reality: it looks like AI is not architecture-bound (like LeCun and others want us to believe, but so far they mis-interpreted LLMs at every step) but GPU bound, and the data-boundness is both a common ground for all, and surpassable via RL in many domains. So, if this is true, it is not trivial for any single lab to do so much better. And indeed as far as we observed right now folks with enough engineers, GPUs, money, can ship frontier models, and in China even labs with a lot less GPUs can still do it at a SOTA level. For me, Italian, this is also a protective layer. After Trump the US looks like a very unstable partner from which to relay in an exclusive way for a decisive technology, and given that Europe is slow to put the money in this technology to have frontier things at home, China is a huge and shiny plan B for us. |
| |
| ▲ | throwaway-blaze 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The strings attached by the US to deep partnerships are things like trade/commerce, militarily mutual advantages (bases on euro soil from which we will help protect you), not to mention the close cultural and ancestral ties we share. The strings attached by the Chinese govt to deep partnerships are not so benign. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | rolymath 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's only humorous if you live in an American bubble. Knowledge sharing has always been a part of Chinese culture. Only Americans try to make it proprietary and monetize it. |
|
| ▲ | osti 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe open source == communism |
| |
| ▲ | darkwater 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Good ol' Steve "Developers! Developers! Developers!" Ballmer said so a long time ago. What a visionary! | |
| ▲ | tadfisher 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Nah, open source means those who do the work own the result. It's supercapitalism. | | |
| ▲ | pheggs 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I dont think thats right, the models and the gpus are the means of production. in capitalism the people with the capital get the profit, not the people who do the work. however, workers are said to benefit too through their salary, just less so | | |
| ▲ | tadfisher 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | The reason regular-capitalism worked is that all production used to depend on workers bottlenecking the free flow of capital by demanding salaries in exchange for their labor. Now that we've removed that obstacle, capitalism demands workers seize the means of production in order to maintain the status quo. Hence, supercapitalism. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway-blaze 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | regular capitalism works but now that the means of production are not factories, the workers have to become more entrepreneurial. Then they will control their destinies. | |
| ▲ | pheggs 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | workers seizing the means of production is by definition socialism and not capitalism though, that's the whole idea behind socialism |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | konart 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But China is not communist event though the rulling party the word in its name. | | |
| ▲ | pheggs 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | what makes you think that china ever gave up its communist goals? I personally see that everything they do aims towards that goal. From the one child policy, the huge amounts of empty apartments they build, the stuff they produce for almost free, the fishing.. open sourcing the models perfectly fits that culture too, it's the means of production | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | China is a ruthless capitalist country managed by an authoritarian regime. Planning and lack of respect for the individual or the rule of law are not communist per se. | |
| ▲ | otterley 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The one-child policy died a long time ago. Also, the accumulation of wealth by connected politicians and businesspeople flies in the face of what communism is supposed to stand for. There is a reason real estate values in popular cities has skyrocketed, and it’s not due to the locals getting wealthier. It’s where Chinese and other oligarchs put their ill-gotten wealth (well, besides Bitcoin). | | |
| ▲ | bwv848 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | One-child policy did not die, it just morphed into Three-child policy, still a form of family planning, and still would probably fine people for having more than three kids. | |
| ▲ | pheggs 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The one-child policy died a long time ago. true, but as far as I understand it did because birth rates got too low. so they replaced it with a two-child policy and later with a three-child policy > Also, the accumulation of wealth by connected politicians and businesspeople flies in the face of what communism is supposed to stand for. Yeah, I am sure there's a lot of cases for that. But as far as I know the amount of billionaires has started declining in China, and I don't see how that means that they as a country moved away from the goal, it just means there's issues > There is a reason real estate values in popular cities has skyrocketed, and it’s not due to the locals getting wealthier. I don't know about that, you could be right. A google search for real estate prices in china reveal a lot of news articles how they are going down though. > It’s where Chinese and other oligarchs put their ill-gotten wealth (well, besides Bitcoin). Wouldn't be surprised if rich people in china invest in real estate. They don't have free capital flow, so its not easy to invest abroad and it becomes an obvious choice. Bitcoin is banned in China for that reason too But again, as far as I know that does not mean the country moved their goals of trying to reach communism one day | | |
| ▲ | otterley 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I don't see how that means that they as a country moved away from the goal, it just means there's issues They're further from Communism than they've ever been since the PRC was founded. The gap between rich and poor is growing there, not shrinking. > A google search for real estate prices in china reveal a lot of news articles how they are going down though. They're investing outside China (Vancouver, Toronto, NYC, London, Sydney, Melbourne, etc.) because their assets are safer there (these countries all have strong property protection laws). Like Bitcoin, freedom of capital flows may be restricted, but the wealthy seem to be evading these restrictions with impunity. | | |
| ▲ | pheggs 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > They're further from Communism than they've ever been since the PRC was founded. The gap between rich and poor is growing there, not shrinking. I suppose it depends on what time frame you look at, it's shrinking since 2010, but inequality rose more than that in the 80s: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/China/gini_inequality_index... However, that's not my point - I did not mean to say that they are going to be successful but rather that it still appears to be a long term goal for them. > Like Bitcoin, freedom of capital flows may be restricted, but the wealthy seem to be evading these restrictions with impunity. I don't know about that, without any source of data I guess I just have to take your word for it. I would not be surprised if you were right in this case though. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | fragmede 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The Democratic People's Republic of Korea would like a word. | |
| ▲ | osti 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oh i’m fully aware of that lol |
|
|
|
| ▲ | brandensilva 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| We are at the point where uncontrolled capitalism collides with humanity. I do wonder where we go from here. |
| |
| ▲ | pheggs 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | it's not necessarily capitalism, I personally believe any system that drives progress would cause this in one way or another. My prediction is that birth rate decline will accelerate further. There's going to be some kind of universal basic income in many places, such as Ireland made for artists. However, it probably will not be enough to feed a family, and therefore we will see birth rates decline further. It's because we evolved to prioritize resources over reproduction and we are becoming more efficient, which means less people are needed to sustain the same amount of resources |
|