There’s a Twitter thread making rounds by Dean Ball about deceleration in AI development caused by open models and I can’t understand how people don’t see that it’s true: open models dismantle the frontier lab capex spend potential by reducing the training budget to zero in the limit. Tokens from different providers are not fungible, but customers are nevertheless very price sensitive and close enough is good enough, eg. K3 being opus+ in capability and cheaper than opus per successful task in the long run is an obvious financial decision.

No training budget means deceleration, or at least slower acceleration, margin compression and a completely demolished IPO valuation; path to machine god requires dollars and capable open models externalize training costs to true frontier labs parasitically.

IMHO humanity has a better chance at not destroying itself due to less than breakneck pace - but there’s a chance frontier models get sponsored by the USG and are never released publicly so they can’t be distilled and then what?

He recently did a walkback of that post. But ultimately, who cares? If the only way for AI to progress is in the hands of a few closed players, well, I don’t really think humanity needs that. Of course, it’s a preposterous claim in the first place. The ultimate reason deep learning and LLMs have made it as far as they have is the explosion of open research and research artifacts in the last decade.

> there’s a chance frontier models get sponsored by the USG and are never released publicly so they can’t be distilled and then what?

That premise hinges on one implicit assumption: Chinese advances are due to distillation ONLY and that Chinese model providers cannot keep advancing if they do not distill, which is a very big if. If Chinese models keep advancing in such a scenario, and they almost certainly will, they will overtake publically available models by US providers and China will dominate the LLM industry.

The big decelerationist threat is a sudden reduction in competition. If either OpenAI or Anthropic drop out or the open weights stuff is banned/becomes uncompetitive then the motivation and tolerance for taking risks with the larger training runs tanks.

The closest we've seen to this in tech in recent decades was iOS vs Android, where Android only really was competitive for a very short window of time (approx 4.x) and it was during that period that both Android and iOS actually improved dramatically for end users. Once Android lost the plot again, and especially in the US market, all that energy started going in some very silly directions.

I read his followup tweet, and your comment, and I'm not fully convinced that open models are decelerationist. Happy to hear other thoughts on this.

Open weight AI is decelerationist from the perspective that all capital should be allocated to a market leaders for training, and that the market leader is fully invested in continuously making the models smarter, cheaper, faster for its users, or that distillation from this market leader is the main way to make progress.

We might reach a local optimum/equilibrium faster without open weight models, with leaders capturing more of the market faster to a point where further R&D isn't required due to lack of competition. I also doubt that distillation is the only/main way that open weight models were advancing AI research. We can name a few examples from DeepSeek around reasoning, context optimization, etc. I'm also unconvinced that the overall market capex on AI is lower given more competition (probably less specifically for US market capex, which is decelerationist from only the US perspective).

I’m not entirely convinced, there are many dimensions to progress. For example, DeepSeek has had a few very impressive innovations that all models could benefit from. There’s also the law of diminishing returns, the US labs have plenty of CAPEX already.

Sometimes, constraints, like sanctions, can also be a source if innovation.

> There’s a Twitter thread making rounds by Dean Ball about deceleration in AI development caused by open models and I can’t understand how people don’t see that it’s true: open models dismantle the frontier lab capex spend potential by reducing the training budget to zero in the limit.

If you're worried about an AGI arms race between the U.S. and China putting AI Safety at risk, then the fact that inherently less knowledgeable/capable models (fewer and more coarsely quantized total parameters than their proprietary competitors according to commonplace rumors) are having a "decelerationist" effect is actually great news. Even better if China is actually "Yann LeCun-pilled" (verbatim from Ball's post) and doesn't really believe in early AGI. So explain to us exactly why we're supposed to ban/discourage use of these open source models? The only way that makes sense is as a transparently self-serving proposal from the chief OpenAI policy lobbyist.

Love the deceleration narrative :)

"No, sir, we haven't reached the peak of this tech... It's those open models! Please, keep pumping dollars into the market!"

I dunno, it means Anthropic and OpenAi need to get efficient and maybe cannot just expect trillion dollar ipos?