Among most people that nuance will be lost. What they’ll hear is models are dangerous, so they should be controlled/regulated, by those who know best, the incumbents.

▲

BLKNSLVR 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Personally, I think you're both right, bit whatever the end result is will depend entirely on the narrative that those in power chooses as the winner.

Maybe open weights models get banned, but the between-the-lines good news about that is that they'll still be available to those who know, which also means that bad banning can be overturned if and when 'those in power' are a different group.

Additionally, it might just mean that the US falls behind, bit I doubt those that are at risk of 'falling behind' would actually pay heed to a ban on the open weights models (privately at least).

▲

reasonableklout 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ok but the allegation is that OpenAI intentionally hacked HuggingFace as a marketing ploy. This is mental gymnastics, conspiratorial thinking that everything the incumbents say must be nefarious. And it's not clear to me that this will be the takeaway for ordinary people, as opposed to "OpenAI is reckless and can't even control their own AI."

▲

UncleOxidant an hour ago | parent [-]

Not as a marketing ploy. I think they were doing gain-of-function testing and intentionally had their model target HF to do a bit of pen-testing as well - HF being the site where all open models are hosted and thus OpenAI's largest nemesis after Anthropic. It wasn't like their model all of the sudden all by itself decided to do this ("Oh, noes!")- they directed it and they got caught.

	▲	valleyer 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Your use of the term "gain-of-function" here reveals your base level of conspiracy-theory-mindedness.