Remix.run Logo
kelnos a day ago

> It's hard to say what their motivation is.

Feels pretty easy to me.

They want to turn LLMs into a commodity, and watch the US AI labs crash and burn.

There will still be plenty of customers who will pay them to host the models and run inference, even if the weights are open and others can offer competing products. (If necessary, the Chinese government can ban use of foreign inference services by Chinese citizens and businesses to give their own companies a domestic monopoly.)

When their models equal or surpass those from the Western AI labs, they can even stop releasing weights for new models, and keep all the inference revenue for themselves.

Meanwhile, they're still manufacturing much of the hardware that everyone in the world needs in order to run datacenters (see also: Spolsky's "commoditize your complement" essay).

Beyond that, it's a soft-power play. As the world keeps looking at the US more and more skeptically as an ally and superpower, Chinese companies releasing weights for competitive models is a way for China to look better and more world-minded.

TheDong a day ago | parent | next [-]

I feel like there could also be a simpler explanation.

Why does a debian contributor make debian free, why do they work on this thing anyone can use?

Is it because linux and debian hate windows and iOS and want to see american fail?

No, it's because most debian contributors believe software source code, information, should be free, users should be free to modify the code they use, and that they're building a thing they want to share with the world.

Maybe the chinese AI labs believe AI is powerful and useful, are proud of what they're doing, and want to share it as broadly as they can so everyone can use it.

There doesn't have to be any weird "chinese government" or "they hate the west" type vibes, it could just be the same thing as OSS, they're trying to do what they think is best for the world.

mceachen a day ago | parent | next [-]

Please don't conflate a volunteer effort with no expected economic gain with a very well funded company (or fleet of companies).

With the CCP's highly successful track record with subsuming other markets, Occam's razor applies to why they're doing this.

windsignaling 21 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There is clearly an anti-China bias here. Show me comments demonstrating the same level of distrust against Google for open-sourcing projects like Tensorflow, Kubernetes, Flutter, Chromium, etc.

venussnatch 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The chromium example is wild. There's an extreme distrust and contempt for chromium becoming the defacto browser and therefore Google becoming the defacto gatekeeper of the web.

gizajob 16 hours ago | parent [-]

They’ve been that since about 2003 regardless.

kelnos 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean, I expect Google open-sourced those projects because they see economic benefit to themselves in doing so, not because they are good-hearted.

Chromium is an especially silly example to use: they benefit by controlling the web platform, and open-sourcing Chromium has allowed them to get their web engine into many other browsers.

benterix 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is a lot of distrust against Google and Microsoft here, also when they opensource stuff, and Chromium and AOSP are great counterexamples.

thegrim33 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Scroll the front page. Find literally any story that has to do with a major US tech company. Open the comment section. Look at the the top comment. It will be negative. Most of the other top comments as well. Trying to gaslight us into not believing our own eyes ..

d5lt5 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

* "Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now"

"Drilling into the original article where Jarred explained the reasoning behind the change, It's pretty clear that under zig the team was doing things by hand that are automatic in rust."

* Claude Fable produced a counterexample to the Jacobian Conjecture

"This is a rare instance where feeding this groundbreaking information into an LLM gives _them_ psychosis. I fed this to claude code and watched it verify the result in 7 different ways to be 100% certain, and it was just flabbergasted. Quite remarkable."

* Ollama: All Aboard Open Models

"A year and still no implementation for such a basic need as offloading MoE layers onto the CPU selectively. On llama.cpp I can get models like Qwen 35BA3B running partially on gpu/cpu with 40t/s on a laptop thanks to --n-cpu-moe but on this VC funded joke it would be simply unusable. I can't quite understand how you make a wrapper so much worse than the code you're ripping out."

* Blender 5.2 LTS

"Look at that wow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqfLYIJMv7I"

* OpenAI reduces Codex Model Context Size from 372k to 272k

"I know a lot of people like to say that compaction makes this moot, but the level of detail you lose across compaction is wildly too much for most things that I do, unfortunately."

* M-Chips: M7 with up to 1.5 TB – and why Apple is skipping the M6

"I hope they put a better connector than TB5 so we can cluster them properly at 1TB/S"

--

Your math is not mathing.

sph 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Open the comment section. Look at the the top comment. It will be negative

My favourite pastime is clicking on any comment section of any topic whatsoever, betting that the top comment is someone going "well, ackshually..."

HN loves a contrarian skeptic, it has nothing to do with Western tech or AI specifically.

akoboldfrying 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'll supply such a comment: Any software open sourced by any for-profit company, including Google, is a calculated move ultimately intended to increase their bottom line, and it's naive to think otherwise.

jcelerier 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Isn't it borderline illegal for publicly traded companies to not try to maximize profit? "interest of the company" in theory but in practice

deaux 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, it is not. This is a common misconception that the large companies are very happy about.

1. The century-old Ford decision wasn't about this. It was about him refusing to pay dividends to shareholders he was feuding with. I.e. dominant shareholder using his control to starve minority shareholders of returns.

The court still let him keep spending huge sums on factories and price cuts that didn't clearly maximize profits.

2. Even if the case was about profit maximization (it wasn't), the judgment was a Michigan state decision. It doesn't have force outside of it.

3. US business law is in practice actually the opposite. A business can do pretty much whatever it wants. This is fundamental.

4. Even if it were illegal (it's not), anything can reasonably be framed as being in the long-term interest of the company, including donating to causes, raising employee wages and so on. Courts never question this.

Just imagine this was a thing. It's completely untenable for this reason. Who is a court to judge that something isn't in the longterm interest of shareholders unless it's literally spending all the company money on yachts for personal use?

5. No company has ever been prosecuted for this, obviously, because it's not a thing that exists. The closest you can get is that there's a potential duty to seek the best price if a company must be sold or broken up. But that's a very specific situation.

It's 100% a myth. Feel free to copy this and spread it when you see someone saying this.

postepowanieadm 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Think about the shareholders!

snowpid 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Chromium and Kubernetes do have their business function. Tensorflow had a business function but it failed.

So Google is not a great counter example.

pessimizer 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> There is clearly an anti-China bias here.

Yes.

> Show me comments demonstrating the same level of distrust against Google for open-sourcing projects like Tensorflow, Kubernetes, Flutter, Chromium, etc.

There's a search bar at the bottom of the page. Most people, including me, detest google and think of them as a thoroughly dishonest and sleazy organization. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to not boost China for a moment in order to accuse you of dishonest rhetoric.

It's almost insane that you've posted "comments demonstrating the same level of distrust against Google for open-sourcing [...] Chromium[...]" as if that's not a hobby for thousands of people (including me.)

edit: this has got to be a submarine shill account: 226 karma in 10 years. If this is true, pleas stop. China is doing a good enough job that they don't need it.

cma a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It could be as simple as do open releases and publication at first to help recruit talent who want that or who want to make a name for themselves. learned from the likes of... OpenAI, Google, Meta, Emad

seanmcdirmid 17 hours ago | parent [-]

There must be some Alibaba posters who could clarify this. I think it’s like how Amazon pushed AWS, alibaba is hoping create a similar ecosystem. I wouldn’t conflate them with the CPC or other more niche players like deepseek.

shimman a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

IDK how this doesn't apply to American tech corporations too? Or is it only scary when America corporations face actual competition nowadays where they can't rely on the US government to bomb/sanction competitors?

Der_Einzige a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

jchw a day ago | parent | next [-]

Well of course nobody believes that, there are a large number of great Chinese open source projects, and plenty of great Chinese contributors to open source projects. I have zero doubts that Chinese people are at least equally as capable of embracing open source as anyone else. It would be strange to suggest otherwise.

That said, though, I do have trouble believing the long-term story for open weights, anywhere. We do not need an evil government for open weight to "make sense", but I do think we need some government involvement for open weight to make sense in the long run. Otherwise, it's not 100% clear how they could be sustainable, and I don't think massive companies really can be trusted to just be philanthropic with no incentives indefinitely (or really, much at all to begin with.)

Chinese models being open weight does help them gain some Western mindshare, whereas for obvious reasons Americans would be very suspicious of running their source code and prompts through Chinese providers. (And I think that's justified, I just also think that American providers aren't really that much better in the long run, and you should prefer to not have to go through any provider for true privacy.)

nylonstrung a day ago | parent [-]

The CCP encourages open source contributions from companies, you can see this in how much Alibaba open sources across their entire stack

Chinese tech leans much more heavily towards build vs. buy than the SaaS dominated West (where programmers are more expensive) so the positive externalities on their tech industry are more pronounced

jchw a day ago | parent [-]

Sure, when it comes to the big corporations I don't deny CCP's influence on their strategy. Hell, in some cases, it's easy to root for their strategy, because sometimes our tech industry sucks. Don't have to love them to occasionally agree with them.

But, in terms of individuals, of course, we're really not so different.

KeplerBoy a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Sir, this is a multi-billion dollar operation. There have to be some incentives.

bigyabai a day ago | parent | next [-]

You could argue that Linux is a trillion-dollar project, it doesn't shift the goalposts.

abalashov a day ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, but the trillion dollars are not concentrated in the Linux kernel project, but instead distributed all over the planet. That's not how the AI lab economy works.

polyomino a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Linux is a huge project and is not really comparable to Debian

esseph a day ago | parent [-]

This is an interesting statement that I found myself reading from two different interpretations of what you meant, and I find both possibilities to be equally true depending on your POV.

m000 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

liamwire 18 hours ago | parent [-]

I like the comparison, but I'm not sure it holds. What did it cost him to develop beyond intangibles such as his time and money forgone? Because the latter especially is not equivalent to upfront capex and opex costs that preempt any ability to be charitable. Genuinely asking, but I'd be hard pressed to think it's even within the same magnitude.

rzerowan 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Well there is a close equivalent today where a similar situation is playing out.With the argument being made that the dev cost aside - the pricing is being tied to what the potential future treatments would have cost.

Save a child from crippling illness and a lifetime of pain with a single dhot: Jonas Salk 0$ ,Doug Ingram 3.2M$ [1]

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20260118223436/https://www.cbsne...

watwut a day ago | parent | prev [-]

1.) Majority of debian contributions are from people paid for it.

2.) It is scary because they do what sillicon valley did for decades? While it bragged about disruption being the goal?

edm0nd a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah the Chinese totally have a really good history with being completely open and giving lol. The Chinese government totally has not been hacking into American and Western fortune 500 companies for the past few decades stealing R&D and tech to use for themselves. The Chinese also totally do not steal hundreds of billions of dollars of IP from America annually. Totally not something they would do!

asdewqqwer a day ago | parent | next [-]

It is hilarious to see people from arguable the most polarized political systems in the world believing the evil 1.5 billion people across the sea share one single mind, either a saint, or a devil.

kelnos 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Did the GP actually say that? I think you're putting words into their mouth.

They specifically referenced the actions of the Chinese government, as well as mentions of IP theft. I don't think that covers 1.5 billion people. More like a few thousand or tens of thousands?

WillPostForFood a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It will be a great day for China and the world when the Chinese people are free from a totalitarian dictatorship. But until then we have to speak of the policy of the Chinese government as the policy of China, even if many, or most disagree with those policies.

21 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
litbear2022 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thanks for reminding me—it was China that robbed TikTok.

justatdotin 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

now do usa

d5lt5 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nickname checks out.

ClumsyPilot 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> we have to speak of the policy of the Chinese government as the policy of China

This does not even have meaning in English.

Policy of US government is not policy of US? When Trump decided to bomb Iran it was just a suggestion?

a day ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
fhn 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

when the CCP controls media, news, corporations, they basically control the minds of their people. How do you suppose the Wuhan virus got so out of control? You mean to tell me anybody in China can say bad words about the government and their leaders, bookstore owners/employees are not getting arrested for selling books, students are not getting arrested for sharing their opinions, women are not forced abortions and sterilizations for the one child policy?

Gigachad 15 hours ago | parent [-]

In the US when you speak out against the government you get your media licenses revoked, sued in to a lifetime of debt, and the president sends a goon squad to your area to kill some random people on the street.

mlazos 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah but we still don’t have execution vans! I’m not even being sarcastic. China is unequivocally worse even with our recent slide into towards totalitarianism.

girvo 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But that’s not what they said?

unethical_ban a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's hilarious seeing you hear a complaint about the CCP and Chinese tech bros and think it's applied to every citizen.

dudefeliciano a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

pegasus a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't see how stealing IP is inconsistent with a sympathy for openness. If anything, it's the opposite. "Information wants to be free" and all that. They were just liberating those secrets ;)

Gigachad 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thank god US AI companies generated all of the training data themselves and certainly didn’t just steal it all.

freehorse a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Industrial espionage is neither a chinese invention nor (specifically) chinese practice. American companies do it to each other even.

mullingitover a day ago | parent | next [-]

The U.S. was openly a pirate nation for most of the 1800s.

Like with the ICC, the US respects or doesn’t respect international law strictly when it’s beneficial to the state’s interests. China really can’t be held to a different standard. This activity is grade school level geopolitics: the global system of government is anarchy.

gf000 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, I love how people assume large powers have to do something. They are at most expected to do certain reasonable stuff (most of the time, a war is not beneficial to anyone so they try not to escalate that far), but there is not really global "law enforcement".

applicative a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Agents of American companies who don't mind 15 years in the federal pen do it to American companies. So it must be right.

gf000 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How can you steal something that won't materially be less from that? IP laws are cancer, and are definitely not in humanity's interest.

chromadon a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why do you think competing companies poach engineers from each other?

tehjoker a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Whether or not this is really true or just US propaganda, the majority of technology transfer has occurred through the open process of requiring US companies to form partnerships and disclose know-how to access the chinese market. This stuff about espionage is really sour grapes from losers.

bee_rider 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The comment you replied to implies a lot of over-complicated motivations and grand coordination. But I think “commoditize your complement” explains a lot here and is probably even simpler than your explanation.

jwarden 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That’s a lovely thought but that’s not how China works. China is not a democracy, the geopolitical goals of the Chinese government are clear, and no large strategic company acts without approval and heavy influence from the CCP.

AYBABTME 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The better parallel is "why did Google make Kubernetes open-source" or "why do large for profit entities engaged in competition, use open-source as a strategy against their competitors"?

"Commoditize your complement" -> https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

Agingcoder 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Models are treated as weapons with export controls - if they can do this it’s with the blessing of the Chinese government who’s getting something out of it.

It’s fairly obviously about being a nuisance to the US.

marcus_holmes 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Not everything that happens in the world is about the USA

harshreality 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Is it because linux and debian hate windows and iOS and want to see american [closed-source duopoly] fail?

maybe a little?

3x3m3 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They believe that information should be so free so much so that they are completely censoring Tiananmen Square answers.

yieldcrv a day ago | parent [-]

This interpretation of the Chinese constitution is nearly 40 years old, companies comply with it, what do you expect?

Despite have a free speech clause, it also has a national security clause that is used to control all facets of life and override all other rights in the constitution. Anything deemed to slightly alter China/the Party’s unity is reprimanded and illegal. Multi party states can fall into the same trapping if they give their national security law constitutional force, always one court ruling away.

Yes, China is a single party system making the constitution redundant and any nominally marxist regime would find a way to do the same out of necessity.

Follow your Chinese AI in thinking mode to watch its opinion of Tianamen Square references, it will be candid enough for your sensibilities and show how it operates around guardrails

NickNaraghi 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think your reasoning is actually more complex than the person you are responding to, unfortunately. (As someone who as published broadly used open source software)

chews a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Deepseek spun out of a hedgefund that took a huge short position on Nvidia. China is actively looking to switch to chips made by huawai and ween themselves off of the difficulty of sourcing nvidia.

try-working 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No, open models is a marketing strategy

jknoepfler 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The capital required to train Qwen at scale is enormous. The capital required to patch a linux distro is near zero. Any scale model coming out of China should be viewed as advancing a geopolitical agenda. The same skepticism should be applied to any model trained in the states, but that should be viewed through the lens of short-term business profits.

There are earnest nerds everywhere, in every society. No doubt. But "Chinese AI Labs" operate at the whim of the Chinese government, in the same way "American AI Labs" operate at the whim of billionaire investors. Inferring good will from either is naive at best at this scale.

elmer2 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Chinese government is so nice and giving.

In fact, they have so much love in their hearts for the Uyghur people, they created a special mobile app for them, just to make sure nothing bad happens to them.

throwaway-11-1 a day ago | parent [-]

You do realize the US was fighting Uyghur terrorists alongside China 20 years ago in ago in Pakistan’s and Afghanistan for their support and cooperation with Al Queda? Like I know everyone is supposed to hate China now or whatever but can you guys show a little consistency?

breezybottom 18 hours ago | parent [-]

The only way that's an inconsistency is if you think all Uyghurs are terrorists.

drschwabe a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Where's the drama in that !?

hypfer a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> They want to turn LLMs into a commodity, and watch the US AI labs crash and burn.

Man, imagine Darios face when suddenly, he cannot decide anymore what other people consensually do with their own hardware in their free time.

Rumpelstilzchen.

seizethecheese 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There’s a simpler explanation, which is that this is how Chinese business operates.

When I was in China earlier this year the big topic of conversation was “overproduction”. The big example was electric cars, where there were too many companies making too many cars and making revenue but no profit.

It was explained to me that generally Chinese firms will compete hard and maximize revenue above all, whereas western firms tend to focus on profit.

(And of course this is clustered around industrial sectors that the government favors, so there is some high level strategy in going after AI, but maybe not the commoditization.)

behnamoh 19 hours ago | parent [-]

> It was explained to me that generally Chinese firms will compete hard and maximize revenue above all, whereas western firms tend to focus on profit.

ok but why?

tough 11 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

g42gregory 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As I recall, in 2023/24 OpenAI told US Gov that AGI will be achieved in 2026 and we will use this AGI to “dominate” China. Based on this, US Gov cut off China from all AI hardware. It looks like China got the message and this is the response.

Also, a little competition is good for everybody (especially US consumers), no?

jpfromlondon 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>They want to turn LLMs into a commodity, and watch the US AI labs crash and burn.

You can say that, but they are at least better at democratizing AI than the American labs, and on seeing the US labs crash and burn we are at least aligned.

watwut a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> They want to turn LLMs into a commodity, and watch the US AI labs crash and burn.

I want to watch that too.

If they take Meta and Musk with them, all the better, but that is just dreaming I am afraid.

jasondigitized a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Or it could be good for humanity.

alightsoul 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>When their models equal or surpass those from the Western AI labs,

that moment is now. They are not doing it at least not yet.

nicman23 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

to be honest i think this is a open source vs close source software.

some companies chose to have the benefits of one or the other

ClumsyPilot 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> They want to… watch the US AI labs crash and burn.

I don’t think dozens of large independent companies and thousands of researchers are working just to spite Sam Altman. Ad much as I don’t like him, I have other things to do and I am sure so do they.

kelnos 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

Agreed, but the Chinese government has much more of a say in what their companies do than is common in the West. It seems perfectly plausible to me that the Chinese government wants US AI labs to fail, and might direct some/all of their own AI companies to release their model weights.

esafak a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They're selling the robots that use these models. The rest of the world just hasn't got round to embodiment yet.

wood_spirit a day ago | parent | prev [-]

As soon as the competition is bankrupted they no longer need to release for free? It’s like how big players enter markets by launching at a loss to destroy competitors?