Our position on open-weights models

Re:Our position on open-weights models by rob74 on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @04:20AM (#49080934)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. As the saying goes: "better the devil you know". China can at least so far be relied upon to not shoot itself in the foot (and take the whole word with it). The same cannot be said of other great powers like the US (under Trump, for more reasons than I'm willing to list here) and Russia (with Putin's completely harebrained invasion of Ukraine). China can prove me wrong any time by invading Taiwan, but I still hope they don't. Of course, if we try to keep them away from advanced chip technology, that would be further motivation to invade (although TSMC is unlikely to survive an invasion - even if it did survive the actual conflict, it would probably be destroyed or evacuated to avoid it falling into Chinese hands? But I don't want to see the hardware prices after such an event).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our position on open-weights models by Foobar8568 on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @07:28AM (#49082286)

And let's not forget the kidnapping of a foreign president, and nothing happened.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our position on open-weights models by p2detar on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @07:26AM (#49082270)

> China can at least so far be relied upon to not shoot itself in the foot

We still don't know where and how Covid came to be, so no - hard disagree.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our position on open-weights models by jeltz on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @07:57AM (#49082497)

We do well enough. It either happened naturally, or less likely due to a lab accident. If there is a cover up it is to hide incompetence.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our position on open-weights models by p2detar on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @08:11AM (#49082628)

[delayed]

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our position on open-weights models by rob74 on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @07:46AM (#49082419)

Yes we do. We also (despite conspiracy theories stating the contrary) know the current climate change is caused by us burning too many fossil fuels, that the utility of vaccines preventing deadly diseases outweighs any rare side effects, that airlines are not involved in a secret conspiracy of releasing chemicals (all airlines at the same time and only in certain meteorological conditions), and that the earth is roughly spherical.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our position on open-weights models by ethbr1 on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @08:29AM (#49082811)

> China can at least so far be relied upon to not shoot itself in the foot (and take the whole word with it)

Here's the dangerous thing about that: modern CCP China is a newly ascendant world power.

Say what you want about the US today, but when was it at isn't interventionist worst historically-speaking?

Countries don't go to war because their leaders take them to war: they go to war because a sufficient chunk of internal interests support war.

And China has a rather politically-powerful military. Although Xi's recent housecleaning substantially weakened that power.

If China goes to war, it's probably going to be because their economy is in tatters.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our position on open-weights models by rob74 on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @09:04AM (#49083208)

> If China goes to war, it's probably going to be because their economy is in tatters.

Well, they probably also have to factor in whether invading Taiwan is likely to improve that situation, and I would argue that it's not - China is currently exporting stuff all over the world, so economic sanctions would be very painful for them. And there are lots of countries who would like to have a slice of the manufacturing that China is currently hogging...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Our position on open-weights models by ethbr1 on Tuesday July 28, 2026 @12:20PM (#49086220)

Very rarely do countries go to war because they think it will improve their economy.

They go to war because a large chunk of their population is pissed off about the economy.