Top
Best
New

Posted by theanonymousone 5 hours ago

Startup founders urge U.S. government not to shut off Chinese open weight AI(www.politico.com)
https://littletech.org/

https://static.politico.com/4a/bf/9c4021d8404386b0a311dcccf0...

515 points | 494 commentspage 2
DrBenCarson 2 hours ago|
Remember when OpenAI were wise enough to know OpenAI should be…open?

Greed will cost America the entire AI market at this rate

andai 5 hours ago||
Don't model weights fall under free speech?
thewebguyd 5 hours ago|
Yes, in theory, we've been through this rodeo before in the 90s. Bernstein vs. US ruled that source code is expressive speech. It's being challenged though, the court could consider weights as machine data (non-expressive operational artifacts, not human communication).

the US could also pull the functional harm argument in the same way the government uses it to regulate some protected speech (like the whole debacle over DeCSS)

Even if the free speech argument prevails, the US GOV can still use sanctions to prevent the public clouds from hosting any foreign open weight models, and prohibit US based sites from distributing the weights. It'll remain functionally legal for individuals (or at least, unenforceable) but in practice, you'll need to pirate the weights they won't be available from any US based site or provider and would be illegal for businesses to use, even if its a gray area, the liability will mean businesses won't touch them.

smalltorch 3 hours ago||
Interesting topic for sure.

You could argue encryption is non-expressive operational artifacts too. Any sources on where it's being challenged with this argument?

Because with free speech, you can just create entirely new languages, so who's to say my language isn't weight values?

Also curious how a business would not have grounds to sue on a sanction like this Businesses (in America) have constitutional protections too.

thewebguyd 2 hours ago||
No official court challenge yet, mostly lawyers/academics putting out papers after California's SB 1047. The general argument I've seen is that because weights are generated during training, and not written line by line by humans (like source code), it's non-expressive and no human understands what the raw weights mean, therefore no human reads them as expression.

There's also Texas v. Johnson (the flag burning case), the court rules that for something to be protected speech it must contain an intent to convey a specific message, and a great likelihood the message will be understood.

The core decision, if ever tested in court, will come down to "Are model weights an expression of human ideas? Or are they purely a mechanical tool?"

mmaunder 2 hours ago||
The letter really dances around the issue that we don’t want to see a ban on the release and use of open weights foreign or domestic models in the US. If we do it will leave us at a severe competitive disadvantage in a global context. Many of us would consider moving our businesses out of the US to avoid being mired in a stagnant pond that reeks of government capture by a handful of corrupt laggards whose core competency is regulating away competition and killing domestic innovation.
DivingForGold 2 hours ago||
"The Bitterness of Poor Quality Remains Long After the Sweetness of a Low Price is Forgotten"

Benjamin Franklin

victor9000 30 minutes ago||
But you don't need an F1 car for a grocery run
nutjob2 2 hours ago||
What did he say about overpaying for something only marginally better?
MeteorMarc 4 hours ago||
Would it even be possible to ban open weight models, given all the ways they can be used in finetuned models or online services, also in 3rd countries?
sixdimensional 4 hours ago||
I think that we humans still have a really tough time differentiating and classifying between public and private goods (and everything in between) from an economic sense.

Unfortunately, capitalism of today appears to find public goods and strong, public, healthy public goods to be undesirable investments. Yet, it seems inevitable that some things trend that direction.

I feel if we could get a better handle on what goods fall into which category, and find ways to make those things sustainable and even grow, the situation could get better.

I'm speaking purely from observations here but it also looks like in some ways, the "invisible hand of the economy" (i.e. Adam Smith) might sort these things out by itself, albeit, painfully.

We could look at the fact that LLMs were mostly created from the public domain (except when they were not), and the resulting products/services (expensive to create/operate, benefits a huge swath of humanity, has all kinds of externality issues) as something that perhaps should again almost be considered as a public good.

If we look at the struggles LLM/AI companies have had with legal structure choices, such as nonprofit, for profit, etc and pricing (e.g. do we make it accessible at a loss? Do we extract huge profits?) as a kind of moral dilemma of classifying this new economic good (LLM-based AI).

In the US, the government has been taking investment interests in some tech companies, and recent proposals even include establishing sovereign wealth funds around AI/LLM. I think this is further evidence that the system is trying to figure out how to classify these new economic goods and corporations.

mark_l_watson 2 hours ago||
Why? The current administration is doing such a fine job protecting the investments of a few hundred wealthy people, and not caring about the economy of the country.

The combination of a wide range of model sizes and capabilities, with good engineering choices as which to use for what applications, that is the way.

leni536 2 hours ago||
English is not my first language, but to me the construct "to urge not to do something" in the title feels off. I think I only saw it without the negative, with some implied urgency... And now that I spelled it out, "urge" and "urgent" are probably related.
aslkalska 5 hours ago|
side note : I wish they had an actual link to the companies instead of just their names in https://littletech.org/membership
More comments...