|
| ▲ | satvikpendem 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| He explicitly said he wants open weight models at his recent speech at an AI conference in Shanghai: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48970449#48970784 |
| |
| ▲ | applicative 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The Chinese equivalent of the expression 'open weights' appears nowhere in this talk. You believed the Western press. Chinese AIs are not typically open. The most important by far is Bytedance. |
|
|
| ▲ | gravypod 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What would the benefit of this be? If China stops open weights, US labs still have the intelligence frontier. Maybe once Chinese models have speed, cost, and intelligence beat but right now they don't. Undermining out entire economy by subsidizing the release of DIY versions of our main economic drive sounds like a huge win for China. |
| |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | applicative 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Maybe once Chinese models have speed, cost, and intelligence beat but right now they don't. Yes this is why I referred to 'months' and was downvoted by people who can't distinguish their politics from reality. You are restating exactly the text you are criticizing. This is the nature of mechanical parrotlike repetition of propaganda: a) You can have 'frontier' models with closed weights. Your sentence is basically a contraction within itself, again, the weight of ideology. b) No one actually knows whether or not the closed weights of Bytedance are beyond all existing frontiers. Again the weight of ideology blinds you to the fact that the real 800 lb gorilla of Chinese Ai is more closed than Anthropic. | | |
| ▲ | ricardobeat 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The latest ByteDance Seed model is behind Opus 4.6 in performance. It’s not even in the conversation atm. The parent made a totally coherent commment that China closing off their open weight models would cede the frontier (and majority of AI users worldwide) to the USA. Nothing you said counters that point. | | |
| ▲ | applicative 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Bytedance models completely pervade business use across China. It is the OpenAI of China, whether you think its a good model or not. |
| |
| ▲ | gravypod 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If they did have a super powerful secret AI why would avoid: 1. Selling access to the US?
2. Ship more and better software?
3. Talk about it publicly? If you had a secret AI better than anything currently available the mere mention of this would crater the US tech investment sentiment. They could even host these Chinese models through AWS and sell at-cost inference on Bedrock and obliterate the US model companies. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | anon373839 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Reuters was reporting that rumor. And then Xi made a public appearance at a conference in Shanghai where he said the opposite of that rumor. |
| |
| ▲ | applicative 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | No in that very speech Xi stated explicitly what amounted to: 'of course when we get a Mythos, it will be a state secret'. In fact the overwhelming weight of AI use in China, the chatgpt so to say, is Bytedance's AI which is absolutely closed and uniquely opaque. The press treatment of these matters was no good and they are slowly walking it back, e.g. NYT yesterday finally actually read the speech. | | |
| ▲ | anon373839 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you have a source for that? The NYT article does not quote Xi making that statement, and I can't find a source for that. In fact, Xi delivered veiled criticism of the security posturing the US has done: > We should put in place laws and regulations, technological monitoring, early warning and emergency response systems in order to strengthen the line of security, prevent abuses and malicious use, and ensure that AI is always under human control. In the meantime, we should jointly oppose overstretching the national security concept in the field of AI and placing one country’s security over that of others. There was a blog post by a state-linked broadcaster cited in the NYT piece: > “China supports openness, but this does not mean it advocates for the unconditional proliferation of all capabilities,” the blog said. The article also quoted an American journalist: > “If these models do reach those dangerous capabilities, they are not going to let it be a free-for-all in terms of releasing them," Mr. Sheehan said. But a distinction has to be drawn between real dangers (which many people believe LLMs have not actually shown, to date) versus "dangers" hyped up marketing purposes or domestic regulatory-capture motives. Presumably the Chinese government is less interested in the latter. | | |
| ▲ | applicative 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | "Dangers" may indeed be hyped up for marketing purposes or domestic regulatory-capture motives. But as Xi stated, they will become real. It is just a question of being unaffected by the motives of the speakers, which is what adults learn to do. | | |
| ▲ | brazukadev 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | replying the request for sources with "as xi stated" without bringing the sources again is quite misleading. It seems you have nothing to back what you are saying. | | |
| ▲ | applicative 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | "google is your friend" The person I am replying to actually believes that Xi actually spoke of "open weights", for example. This is the AI information space we live in. |
| |
| ▲ | anon373839 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > But as Xi stated, they will become real. But the speech doesn't say that? I'm looking at the full text. For example: > We should take seriously the various types of inherent and secondary risks that AI may trigger. The risk portion of the speech is focused more on application-level risks than model capabilities. Which is a much more sensible regulatory framing than what Silicon Valley has proposed. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | GTP 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We can only wait to see if this is true. Another possibility could be that it was an answer to USA's government considering a ban on chinese models. In this way, he fueled the discussion around the importance of open weight models. |
| |
| ▲ | applicative 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Xi actually said that models of the strength to pose security issues will be permanent state secrets -- in the same speech that the first western takes translated as actually using the words 'open weights' which of course nowhere appeared. Now: when will "models of the strength to pose security issues" appear? Maybe my inference 'months' is wrong, but they seem to be advancing rapidly. The administration blather about banning open weights is characteristically confused. Xi has already stated (what is obvious) that he will ban security-endangering weights and keep them a state secret. |
|
|
| ▲ | codemk8 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Me. |
|
| ▲ | darkwater 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What makes you state this? |
| |
| ▲ | riskd 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Decades of xenophobic propaganda | | |
| ▲ | applicative 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, reading Xi's speech. They aren't going to give their Mythos - presumably a few months away - to the Sinaloa cartel or Uighur hackers or the US military or etc etc | | |
| ▲ | h8hawk 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They have already released their models (GLM 5.2 and K3). This is why Amodei and the rest of the effective altruist lobbies are trying to pressure the US government to both ban open-source models and pressure China to do the same. I’m curious to see why you’re so eager to ban open-source LLMs while being okay with Anthropic’s control. Do you think they’ll rebel against you? | |
| ▲ | sudosysgen an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Mythos is Fable without safeguards. Open weight models are already essentially at the Mythos level, and with extra post training a well resourced actor could deploy would almost certainly be significantly better than Mythos at hacking. Whatever their threshold is, it's much higher than that. |
| |
| ▲ | 1234letshaveatw 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wow! Amazing observation! Wait, do you think there could have been any pro Chinese propaganda? Perhaps even some taking place at the present time? I think it could be possible? | | |
| ▲ | Zetaphor 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm sure there's plenty, but if you put on your rational hat and think about the motivations of the Chinese government you'll realize this claim makes no sense, and there's plenty of evidence and good reason saying the opposite | | |
| ▲ | 1234letshaveatw 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | you are probably right! nobody does more domestic discourse shaping than China, but good reason says none of that would take place externally |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | baublet 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | China bad | | |
| ▲ | applicative 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm a) quoting Xi's speech and b) projecting rapid China development to Mythos level. Either you think China will never get to 'Mythos level' because you think China bad; or you think they will release the weights, because you think China bad. Its incredible the weight of ideology over facts in this discourse | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 1234letshaveatw 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That isn't the Chinese way. They are much more focused on undermine and extinguish. Just look at the European car industry- on its way to being non-existent after the market was flooded, bye bye manufacturing base. Undercut the US AI providers and wait them out, they will go private after they have a stranglehold |
| |
| ▲ | bwfan123 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Undercut the US AI providers and wait them out You could have said the same of linux - that it extinguished proprietary OSs at least for server usecases. | | | |
| ▲ | applicative 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Even Xi's speech was as paranoid as Dario Amodei about the possibility of Chinese AI achieving something at the level of say Mythos. If you seriously believe such a thing will be on Hugging Face I really don't know what to say. | | |
| ▲ | fdsjgfklsfd 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 scores higher than Fable 5 on Terminal-Bench, and Fable 5 is Mythos, correct? | |
| ▲ | criley2 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is already something on HuggingFace at the level of Mythos. It's called Kimi K3 and it's running laps around Opus5, Fable5, and Sol56 at cybersecurity. It's so good that the US government is rushing to ban all Chinese models as fast as they can. | | |
| ▲ | applicative 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Fine, you believe Anthropic was lying about Mythos. In fact no view of the matter is needed to formulate the proposition above. It is clear China will soon have a model with the powers imputed to Mythos but which you deny of actual Mythos. It is a trial to deal with this level of ideological blindness; 'ideology has no outside'. If someone says 'when they get Mythos...', declare the possibility of Mythos to be the real lie. But it is quite possible and will be coming in months. | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Reading between the lines, it's fairly clear that Mythos Preview only got its reported results in offensive cyber thanks to a highly specialized harness and humongous amounts of test-time compute. We also don't know what kind of post-training/fine-tuning it got on cyber, Anthropic only stated that it wasn't specifically trained for cyber-offense but that leaves a lot of scope for training on other related things. Overall, the Mythos story is a lot less interesting than most people might like to claim - but note that this doesn't require any actual lying. The interest around K3 is a lot more defensible because we actually know what the architecture looks like, how much effort it takes to get it to run, and what kinds of results it gets on cyber evaluations. And no, it's nowhere near "dangerous" enough to where people might honestly want to ban it for real safety reasons. It does a good enough job at fixing cyber issues, but that's hardly a safety concern. | |
| ▲ | potwinkle 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ReptileMan 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It is true. And only Chinese Han people can continue work on what is already released. But they will be forbidden. /s Sarcasm aside - if the community can't get their shit together to continue improving what is currently public, well - we don't deserve free stuff and open weights. |
