| ▲ | solenoid0937 3 hours ago |
| GLM export controls incoming? I predict Commerce will force OpenRouter, HuggingFace to take some open models down within the next few months. Not that it would make any sense. |
|
| ▲ | rgbrenner 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| If that happens it'll be an absolute disaster. Imagine a scenario where Anthropic and OpenAI prohibit most US companies from using their latest models because of safety.. And meanwhile attackers use equivalent open source models to attack US companies. Any prohibition on open source models will do nothing to fix the problem.. since attackers will never feel bound to the law. All advanced models must be available for defensive purposes. |
| |
| ▲ | andy99 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Right, but is there any evidence of intelligence behind any of these (government) decisions? It’s just regulatory capture + marketing (plus some people living out an imaginary fantasy that they’re in Neuromancer or something), absolutely no reason to think they won’t try and target open models as part of this. | | |
| ▲ | popalchemist 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's at least one reason:
much harder to make a profit in policing non-american companies and open-source models without huge (or even any) MRR. If the real motive is profit, then open source models are likely simply not a viable means to that end. |
| |
| ▲ | solenoid0937 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > since attackers will never feel bound to the law. But that's the whole point. Fall out of favor with the admin and you lose access to the good American models, aren't allowed to use Chinese ones, and fall prey to the attackers and behind your competitors. |
|
|
| ▲ | aussiegreenie an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The Americans may ban the use of the Chinese models in America. But like the Chinese car ban, everyone else will use them. |
|
| ▲ | skissane 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > GLM export controls incoming? I predict Commerce will force OpenRouter, HuggingFace to take some open models down within the next few months. I’m sceptical they could find the legal framework to do this even if they wanted to They have legal authority to (a) prevent export of US goods/services; (b) ban imports of physical goods; (c) ban transactions (including purchasing services or license agreements) with foreign firms But I’m not aware of any legal authority which lets them ban US firms from running a Chinese-developed open source AI model in the United States, if they are at arms length from the vendor, and aren’t using it for government contracts or regulated applications |
|
| ▲ | gruez 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >GLM export controls incoming? US imposing export restrictions on a model from China? |
| |
| ▲ | mcintyre1994 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It’d be restrictions on Americans and American companies, and probably also pressure on America’s allies. | | | |
| ▲ | manquer 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | While unlikely , it is not without precedent , there are restrictions on ASML a Dutch company to sell EUV machines | | |
| ▲ | throwup238 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | That’s because the Department of Energy originally funded and contributed IP to the EUV Corp joint venture between several semiconductor companies (including ASML and Intel). Their ability to export control EUV was part of that original agreement that the entire technology is built on. | |
| ▲ | verdverm 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | ASML complies as an ally, why would China comply? The weights are already available and downloaded, is it going to be a crime to have them, run them, make them available? Constitutional rights still exist (I hope) | | |
| ▲ | solenoid0937 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > is it going to be a crime to have them, run them, make them available? Now you're getting it! Commerce will call it a munition and those harboring it as harboring illegal/foreign munitions. No business will take the hit, so they will quickly deplatform the models. No end user has the GPU capacity to use GLM 5.2 or similar models at full precision so the government will call the problem "mostly solved." But they might choose to "make examples" out of a few people using p2p software to download the weights if they choose to. | | |
| ▲ | verdverm 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Or we use the models to work on fixing vulns and stop over-blowing the doom scenarios. Gotta save the kids and kill the terrorists though! I'm for making software better instead of banning it based on what the rich and powerful claim. I suspect the real fear is that open weight models undermine the financials and token prices they thought were going to pay off their ludicrous spending because they have all raced and raised hardware prices. | | |
| ▲ | hadlock an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > making software better instead of banning it We're still in the middle of the cambrian explosion. If Anthropic was capable of developing Opus 4.49-4.5 2H 2025.... then any company with a research team capable of reading all the papers and press releases will be capable of producing Opus 4.8 by the end of 2027, either raw model competency, or in a harness like claude code (or better with both). I guess what I am trying to say is that Opus 4.5 does not represent the edge of agentic capability, merely somewhere in the thick meaty layer of "functional and achievable". We can draw the line at Sonnet 4.6 in the US but much like encryption export restrictions in the 1980s, the line drawn will be laughably low within a few years and simply unthinkable in a decade. | |
| ▲ | solenoid0937 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > making software better instead of banning it That would be the rational thing to do. > financials and token prices I do not think the government thinks this deeply. Market manipulation might be a rational, if unethical reason to ban open source models. But this admin banned Anthropic models to "own the libs." They will continue to ban what they want for whatever reason they want. I don't think those reasons will be particularly coherent. | | |
| ▲ | verdverm an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, the current admin is reactionary, they appear to put little thought in, or at least disregard input they dislike. I don't think Ant's ban was about "owning the libs" as much as it was asserting dominance over someone who spoke up counter to the admin's aims and claims. They do listen to money, which is where I see Big Ai paying for executive orders (because the admin forgot what it means to compromise as part of legislating for all americans). | | |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | matheusmoreira 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > it going to be a crime to have them, run them, make them available? Yeah. Illegal numbers. |
|
| |
| ▲ | fph 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How would that even work for an open-weight model? |
|
|
| ▲ | djeastm an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think state-of-the-art AI is going to be defense industry only from now on. We can have our toy drones but not the Predators and Reapers. |
| |
| ▲ | Gigachad an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Turns out toy drones are more useful in war than multi million dollar planes anyway. | | |
| ▲ | techpression an hour ago | parent [-] | | Reaper and Predator are both drones and there’s really no comparison to toy drones in terms of sheer destruction and capabilities in general, the comparison is actually quite apt imo. | | |
| |
| ▲ | serf an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | the things that empower modern toy drones were export restricted for years before hand. |
|
|
| ▲ | 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | dakolli an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Cool then everyone will just change their config to route through a provider overseas for an added 50-100ms latency. Who cares. |
