Anthropic has to use this wedge (and future ones) to move regulatory action against the Chinese models or their IPO is going to be really problematic.
(Ironic, though, that I haven't heard of any Chinese models "escaping" which Anthropic and OpenAI both seem to have issues with...)
Like Chinese electric cars, the American producers cannot compete without regulatory action. Yes, I understand that the Chinese government this and that in both the automotive and AI industries.
But reality is what it is as a consumer: it's a cheaper product that's almost as good or better in some cases. And in the case of these open weight models: I can run it on my own infra and not give any data to anyone.
Maybe it’s worth asking how much we should regulate and not regulate in order to compete with Chinese models.
For instance, one regulation which really puts American AI companies at a disadvantage is IP law. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the best of the text-to-video models are Chinese.
Similarly, the legal grey area around model distillation gives Chinese labs a major advantage. This one I feel better about relaxing.
That was just one settlement but precedent is clear. If you do what Anthropic and OpenAI did, expect to be in court. This is one reason why you don’t see labs popping up out of nowhere in the US.
Also if you distill from Anthropic and OpenAI, expect to be in court. Whether you think distillation is fair game or not, the US court system is not cheap. But it turns out that Z.ai, Minimax, Moonshot, Xiaomi, Deepseek, Alibaba etc don’t need to worry about that.
> That was just one settlement but precedent is clear.
The precedent is clear. Look at it this way.
Of the two largest known IP scrapers, one was taken to court, but settled before a ruling by paying each author a one-time fee of $215 to use their works in perpetuity, with no option for the author to opt-out.
The precedent is not "you cannot do this", it's "you have a 50% chance of being made to pay, the payment is a pittance for the duration intended."
> Also if you distill from Anthropic and OpenAI, expect to be in court. Whether you think distillation is fair game or not, the US court system is not cheap. But it turns out that Z.ai, Minimax, Moonshot, Xiaomi, Deepseek, Alibaba etc don’t need to worry about that.
Well, yes. That's because when Ant and OAI distilled the worlds knowledge into their model, they didn't appear to be too worried about distilling all accessible works.
That's why I call it a level playing field when competing with open models - anyone can distill them if they want to and compete on service and product.
IOW, you don't compete based on who swallowed more of the world's knowledge.
My point is that $215 per author might not be a lot for a company that thinks it’s worth $2T but it is a lot for normal American startups. So it really isn’t a level playing field.
> My point is that $215 per author might not be a lot for a company that thinks it’s worth $2T but it is a lot for normal American startups. So it really isn’t a level playing field.
I get your point, but I think it's irrelevant to the question of "level playing field".
Startups don't need to distill the worlds knowledge, they just need to distill the models.
With open-weight models, this results in everyone having the same ability to supply distilled knowledge.
Without open-weight models, it's not a level playing field because those who got there first and spoiled the pitch already have the knowledge distilled.
CharlieDigital · · focus · HN ↗
(Ironic, though, that I haven't heard of any Chinese models "escaping" which Anthropic and OpenAI both seem to have issues with...)
Like Chinese electric cars, the American producers cannot compete without regulatory action. Yes, I understand that the Chinese government this and that in both the automotive and AI industries.
But reality is what it is as a consumer: it's a cheaper product that's almost as good or better in some cases. And in the case of these open weight models: I can run it on my own infra and not give any data to anyone.
janalsncm · · focus · HN ↗
For instance, one regulation which really puts American AI companies at a disadvantage is IP law. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the best of the text-to-video models are Chinese.
Similarly, the legal grey area around model distillation gives Chinese labs a major advantage. This one I feel better about relaxing.
<a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7515521-william-roper-so-now-you-give-the-devil-the-benefit" rel="nofollow">https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7515521-william-roper-so-no...
lelanthran · · focus · HN ↗
How? The big corps are rapaciously eating all IP, demonstrating that the law doesn't apply to them anyway.
When they compete with the Chinese, who won't respect their IP, only then are they competing on an even playing field.
janalsncm · · focus · HN ↗
That was just one settlement but precedent is clear. If you do what Anthropic and OpenAI did, expect to be in court. This is one reason why you don’t see labs popping up out of nowhere in the US.
Also if you distill from Anthropic and OpenAI, expect to be in court. Whether you think distillation is fair game or not, the US court system is not cheap. But it turns out that Z.ai, Minimax, Moonshot, Xiaomi, Deepseek, Alibaba etc don’t need to worry about that.
lelanthran · · focus · HN ↗
The precedent is clear. Look at it this way.
Of the two largest known IP scrapers, one was taken to court, but settled before a ruling by paying each author a one-time fee of $215 to use their works in perpetuity, with no option for the author to opt-out.
The precedent is not "you cannot do this", it's "you have a 50% chance of being made to pay, the payment is a pittance for the duration intended."
> Also if you distill from Anthropic and OpenAI, expect to be in court. Whether you think distillation is fair game or not, the US court system is not cheap. But it turns out that Z.ai, Minimax, Moonshot, Xiaomi, Deepseek, Alibaba etc don’t need to worry about that.
Well, yes. That's because when Ant and OAI distilled the worlds knowledge into their model, they didn't appear to be too worried about distilling all accessible works.
That's why I call it a level playing field when competing with open models - anyone can distill them if they want to and compete on service and product.
IOW, you don't compete based on who swallowed more of the world's knowledge.
janalsncm · · focus · HN ↗
lelanthran · · focus · HN ↗
I get your point, but I think it's irrelevant to the question of "level playing field".
Startups don't need to distill the worlds knowledge, they just need to distill the models.
With open-weight models, this results in everyone having the same ability to supply distilled knowledge.
Without open-weight models, it's not a level playing field because those who got there first and spoiled the pitch already have the knowledge distilled.