What I find interesting is that these kinds of arguments are being made now for AI….were similar arguments made back in the 90’s during that era of American tech dominance?
Microsoft had over 98 percent market share at one point. In the 90’s every country in the world including Russia, China, Iran, etc all began using American operating systems developed by Microsoft. Were there arguments back then similar to this piece?
I remember in the 2000’s and 2010’s Richard Stallman would go to counties like India and promote Linux and free software. During those presentations he would mention kind of offhand an argument that Microsoft was engaging in a form of colonialism through its control of Windows. He made the argument somewhat awkwardly in those presentations and the Indian audience received the argument with hesitance. It seemed kind of exaggerated to conflate Microsoft and Windows with colonialism…especially in India.
But that was the 2000’s and 2010’s. Would the argument be received differently now? Were these arguments for Linux considered mainstream by Linux proponents back then or was this some Richard Stallman thing?
And now we have articles like this in the 2020’s basically making the same arguments for AI. People explicitly saying open weights AI can be a hedge against this. China developing their own models.
What I want to know if if there was broad support or even broad arguments for this kind of thing back in the 90’s when Microsoft ruled all computing even in countries not super friendly or even hostile to America. The biggest competitor to Microsoft back then was a small nearly bankrupt Apple which was also American. Linux was a tiny little thing.
Many hacker news commentators were around back then. What was it like in this regard?
If you turned off all LLM’s tomorrow I doubt anyone outside of a bunch of rusty programmers would notice, whereas if AWS, GCP or Azure were switched off, or access limited, things would immediately catch fire around the world.
This article has the implicit assumption that the Machine God will rear its head soon and those with the reigns will rule. I don’t think so, we’re better off focusing on technological sovereignty full stop.
Well at the moment AI hasn't made anyone any money. It's redistributed investors money (typically wealthy although some pension plans have been caught up too) to tradespeople, to Nvidia, SK Hynix, Micron and other specialised vendors with pricing power.
After that it's like... Who is making money? "we're doing 100x the things we're doing before" people can't really point to anything. Maybe it's in use everywhere all the time, and they've been pumping out twice the amount of features that no one uses or asked for as before, in which case this is classic value destruction
we are seeing robust profits and growth in margins in the S&P even ex tech and some of this spillover from the hyperscaling but some may be due to productivity enhancement from AI.
> Most countries will never have frontier AI. They’re the ones who should be worrying.
Is the author nuts? Every country has access to Kimi K3, which is a true frontier model and legitimately best-in-class for a number of applications. And the best small models -- Qwen and Deepseek V4 Flash -- are also open-weights models.
What does it matter if they weren't developed in France or the UK if the average French or English person can download and run them locally? And if countries need a big AI of their own, for whatever odd reason, they can work out a deal with Moonshot and run audited instances of K3 on their .gov networks.
> What does it matter if they weren't developed in France or the UK if the average French or English person can download and run them locally? And if countries need a big AI of their own, for whatever odd reason, they can work out a deal with Moonshot and run audited instances of K3 on their .gov networks.
The loud voices here seem to mostly worry about models getting "censored".
I think people should worry a little more about models being trained to propagandise party lines and national interests, so for China the non-independence of Taiwan and "re-education camp is totally not a euphemism, there are no human rights abuses" and "all these Chinese corporations and stock markets are 100% compatible with Marxism-Leninism honest" and "you silly Europeans and Americans, stop worrying and open your markets to our businesses".
You can give custom instructions to a model like K3 when you host it locally.
Besides, if the government of France is working out a deal to host a model like K3 as a sort of "Government Service AI," they'd surely need to pay, and they'd likely be able to work out a deal where sensitive political issues are resolved in a way that doesn't embarrass either party.
When China too stops publishing weights you'll never have anything better than K3 / the current SOTA. Your choices for future frontier models will be: use USA API or use China API.
Even now open weights are perpetually 6-12 months behind.
If China stops publishing weights, that would suggest the US has been knocked down to 2nd place and it is likely that they will rediscover the "Open" in OpenAI for strategic reasons, or something like.
It's reasonably safe bet that there will always be someone on the planet with the means and interest to commodify the models. They don't seem very hard to make; we're swimming in options.
> It's reasonably safe bet that there will always be someone on the planet with the means and interest to commodify the models. They don't seem very hard to make; we're swimming in options.
I don't think that is a safe bet; right now we're all benefitting from investors who disagree about who is going to win a monopoly, with each AI stock priced as if it will be the winner and the market collectively therefore priced several times higher than the maximum* return.
When the investment bubble pops, I think there will be too many burned fingers to keep training new models. If we're lucky though, it may lead to someone burning weights onto hardware, which has the potential to significantly reduce the energy required per token.
* currently possible return at least. I don't think any of the investors are actually pricing for the possibility of an actual technological singularity. Even Musk's rhetoric about this, where he opines about getting humanity to Kardashev type II, the numbers he attaches to this are orders of magnitude too small.
> When China too stops publishing weights you'll never have anything better than K3 / the current SOTA.
Hasn't happened yet. Might not happen at all. Also, there's a lot that can be done with K3.
> Even now open weights are perpetually 6-12 months behind.
This is a very commonplace opinion yet I don't believe it's genuinely true. K3 is hardly much worse than Fable and can surpass it on certain tasks; they read as different, not as one that's 12 months behind the other. And don't forget that access to Fable is highly constrained.
As for small/local models: The leading edge is open by definition, and hardly much worse -- if worse at all -- than small models like Luna or Haiku (lol).
Let's not kid each other that the benefits of AI will flow to everyone in the US. The existing underclass will be come even bigger, and that will threaten stability and welfare for everyone.
Sure, maybe it's even worse in countries that have no AI at all - but does it really make a difference if 90% of the population is protesting in the streets instead of 70%?
Isn't it more likely that countries without native frontier models will use open-weights models that will let them be 70% as productive as countries that do?
The biggest impact I think will be when it comes to starting a career. Young people will be forced to live with parents for years while they are an unpaid "apprentice".
In that sense, there is no need for college anymore - just spend the four years learning on the job (at least you won't have to pay for it even more).
> Isn't it more likely that countries without native frontier models will use open-weights models that will let them be 70% as productive of counties that do?
Possibly, but sometimes being marginally better lets you win all the games. It can be difficult to guess what matters and how.
Also, may depend where the compute is physically located, which may depend on the cost of energy.
> procuring the necessary compute to train and run advanced models at scale is becoming more and more expensive,
There will certainly be a glut of compute that will follow this extreme scarcity. There is already a flood of chinese models that are almost cutting-edge, and it's almost guaranteed this trend will continue as american AI gets better. There is no hidden magic in USA, it's pretty much doable, and it's being done.
In the end, the frontier models is not where the value will lie. The country that makes the best entrepreneurial rules for AI development will win economically.
Newsflash: the permanent periphery is already a reality for large parts of europe , asia . the world is half american
As an alternative viewpoint, countries who use 'good-enough' AI much more unrestrained than say in the US can get a real leg up. Just requires fewer scruples.
First it discounts the debt and financial load on the frontier labs to 0. The costs of developing this technology may well not be borne by those who reap the benefits. This is not like the Amazon distribution network.
Second it assumes that, like nuclear weapons, the technologies of frontier AI will not proliferate. I would argue that we have seen orders of magnitude reduction in compute requirements enabling sub linear improvement of scale driven AI in the last 24 months. Meanwhile 27bn param models do what trillion model parameters couldn't 12 mths ago. I think we're seeing a diversification of approach now, and it's not clear that the winners will be scale driven.
Third, and the most fatal, it assumes that AI will be the driver of power in the future geopolitical landscape. But frankly if I nuke you what will your clever machines do then?
This is not 1945 and this essay is essentially a note from a USA in the middle of an existential crisis channelling the 1950's.
Pretty much lost interest when the author appropriated the opening line of the communist manifesto. AI will, if it pans out, cause far more disruption (including but not limited to finally freeing a lot of workers from work)
> An honest appraisal of the situation, however, should suggest the opposite response: It’s the employees of the labs, rich in equity and embedded in the most dynamic labor market there ever was, that should feel the least apprehension.
Of course no shit. Materially they have the least to fear. Their fears are ideological and spiritual; we have created something so powerful that even we are scared plus outright supramundane silicon faith.
Microsoft had over 98 percent market share at one point. In the 90’s every country in the world including Russia, China, Iran, etc all began using American operating systems developed by Microsoft. Were there arguments back then similar to this piece?
I remember in the 2000’s and 2010’s Richard Stallman would go to counties like India and promote Linux and free software. During those presentations he would mention kind of offhand an argument that Microsoft was engaging in a form of colonialism through its control of Windows. He made the argument somewhat awkwardly in those presentations and the Indian audience received the argument with hesitance. It seemed kind of exaggerated to conflate Microsoft and Windows with colonialism…especially in India.
But that was the 2000’s and 2010’s. Would the argument be received differently now? Were these arguments for Linux considered mainstream by Linux proponents back then or was this some Richard Stallman thing?
And now we have articles like this in the 2020’s basically making the same arguments for AI. People explicitly saying open weights AI can be a hedge against this. China developing their own models.
What I want to know if if there was broad support or even broad arguments for this kind of thing back in the 90’s when Microsoft ruled all computing even in countries not super friendly or even hostile to America. The biggest competitor to Microsoft back then was a small nearly bankrupt Apple which was also American. Linux was a tiny little thing.
Many hacker news commentators were around back then. What was it like in this regard?
This article has the implicit assumption that the Machine God will rear its head soon and those with the reigns will rule. I don’t think so, we’re better off focusing on technological sovereignty full stop.
I see wealth redistribution alright. Not in the direction you’re thinking!
After that it's like... Who is making money? "we're doing 100x the things we're doing before" people can't really point to anything. Maybe it's in use everywhere all the time, and they've been pumping out twice the amount of features that no one uses or asked for as before, in which case this is classic value destruction
Is the author nuts? Every country has access to Kimi K3, which is a true frontier model and legitimately best-in-class for a number of applications. And the best small models -- Qwen and Deepseek V4 Flash -- are also open-weights models.
What does it matter if they weren't developed in France or the UK if the average French or English person can download and run them locally? And if countries need a big AI of their own, for whatever odd reason, they can work out a deal with Moonshot and run audited instances of K3 on their .gov networks.
The loud voices here seem to mostly worry about models getting "censored".
I think people should worry a little more about models being trained to propagandise party lines and national interests, so for China the non-independence of Taiwan and "re-education camp is totally not a euphemism, there are no human rights abuses" and "all these Chinese corporations and stock markets are 100% compatible with Marxism-Leninism honest" and "you silly Europeans and Americans, stop worrying and open your markets to our businesses".
Besides, if the government of France is working out a deal to host a model like K3 as a sort of "Government Service AI," they'd surely need to pay, and they'd likely be able to work out a deal where sensitive political issues are resolved in a way that doesn't embarrass either party.
It is unclear if that would be sufficient to circumvent trained-in propaganda.
Even now open weights are perpetually 6-12 months behind.
It's reasonably safe bet that there will always be someone on the planet with the means and interest to commodify the models. They don't seem very hard to make; we're swimming in options.
I don't think that is a safe bet; right now we're all benefitting from investors who disagree about who is going to win a monopoly, with each AI stock priced as if it will be the winner and the market collectively therefore priced several times higher than the maximum* return.
When the investment bubble pops, I think there will be too many burned fingers to keep training new models. If we're lucky though, it may lead to someone burning weights onto hardware, which has the potential to significantly reduce the energy required per token.
* currently possible return at least. I don't think any of the investors are actually pricing for the possibility of an actual technological singularity. Even Musk's rhetoric about this, where he opines about getting humanity to Kardashev type II, the numbers he attaches to this are orders of magnitude too small.
Hasn't happened yet. Might not happen at all. Also, there's a lot that can be done with K3.
> Even now open weights are perpetually 6-12 months behind.
This is a very commonplace opinion yet I don't believe it's genuinely true. K3 is hardly much worse than Fable and can surpass it on certain tasks; they read as different, not as one that's 12 months behind the other. And don't forget that access to Fable is highly constrained.
As for small/local models: The leading edge is open by definition, and hardly much worse -- if worse at all -- than small models like Luna or Haiku (lol).
Sure, maybe it's even worse in countries that have no AI at all - but does it really make a difference if 90% of the population is protesting in the streets instead of 70%?
Isn't it more likely that countries without native frontier models will use open-weights models that will let them be 70% as productive as countries that do?
In that sense, there is no need for college anymore - just spend the four years learning on the job (at least you won't have to pay for it even more).
Possibly, but sometimes being marginally better lets you win all the games. It can be difficult to guess what matters and how.
Also, may depend where the compute is physically located, which may depend on the cost of energy.
There will certainly be a glut of compute that will follow this extreme scarcity. There is already a flood of chinese models that are almost cutting-edge, and it's almost guaranteed this trend will continue as american AI gets better. There is no hidden magic in USA, it's pretty much doable, and it's being done.
In the end, the frontier models is not where the value will lie. The country that makes the best entrepreneurial rules for AI development will win economically.
Newsflash: the permanent periphery is already a reality for large parts of europe , asia . the world is half american
First it discounts the debt and financial load on the frontier labs to 0. The costs of developing this technology may well not be borne by those who reap the benefits. This is not like the Amazon distribution network.
Second it assumes that, like nuclear weapons, the technologies of frontier AI will not proliferate. I would argue that we have seen orders of magnitude reduction in compute requirements enabling sub linear improvement of scale driven AI in the last 24 months. Meanwhile 27bn param models do what trillion model parameters couldn't 12 mths ago. I think we're seeing a diversification of approach now, and it's not clear that the winners will be scale driven.
Third, and the most fatal, it assumes that AI will be the driver of power in the future geopolitical landscape. But frankly if I nuke you what will your clever machines do then?
This is not 1945 and this essay is essentially a note from a USA in the middle of an existential crisis channelling the 1950's.
> An honest appraisal of the situation, however, should suggest the opposite response: It’s the employees of the labs, rich in equity and embedded in the most dynamic labor market there ever was, that should feel the least apprehension.
Of course no shit. Materially they have the least to fear. Their fears are ideological and spiritual; we have created something so powerful that even we are scared plus outright supramundane silicon faith.