The best explanation is that it's a goal of the CCP to generally commodotize LLMs, because LLMs will ultimately be a compliment to manufacturing (which China dominates), and you always want to "commodotize your compliments".
I think this explains why they are open sourcing broadly. It's not to be nice. It's a strategic play by the Chinese government to help ensure there are many players in this race and not too much power accumulates to American labs (even if American labs benefit in the process)
It's a bad explanation because it assumes decision making about LLM releases is centralized in the CCP even though every AI lab has a different strategy. Some publish LLM research with small models but seem to be staying out of the race to the frontier (Weibo), some train large models but publish few research details and no weights (Bytedance, iFlyTek), some decide on a case-by-case basis what they publish or not (Alibaba, Baidu), ...
There is no rule that every Chinese LLM company must open-source their models, and many don't.
I'm aware of Article 17 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China <a href="https://english.court.gov.cn/2016-04/14/c_761425_2.htm" rel="nofollow">https://english.court.gov.cn/2016-04/14/c_761425_2.htm "The grass-root organizations of the Communist Party of China in companies shall carry out their activities in accordance with the Constitution of the Communist Party of China." but not any rule requiring them to be in leadership positions specifically. Maybe you could point me to it?
Even if there's a party member at the C-level of some company making day-to-day business decisions, that doesn't necessarily mean they're carrying out detailed instructions from higher-ups in the party as opposed to following their own best judgment. The CCP generally doesn't micro-manage everything, but operates more in a "mission tactics"-like way, where the top level gives out a broad goal that gets condensed down into a slogan like "new productive forces," and interpreting and elaborating on the details is left to lower levels who seek to align their initiatives with the top-level goals (e.g. by describing AI as a "new productive force") and initiatives that appear successful will get blessed as official policy.
That different companies follow different strategies when it comes to model releases is clear evidence that there is no unified party line on this question yet.
That the CCP doesn't have input in this, which is the most important tech in history, which could be more dangerous than even nukes, is naive.
Maybe because there is enough given away that there's a lot of competition they may let other companies do whatever they want but to think the CCP isn't managing this is insane to me
The CCP could have input, if they chose to. Currently they choose not to. There is no party consensus that AI is the most important tech (Xi Jinping cares more about the "real economy," i.e. manufacturing) and there definitely is no consensus on whether models should be open-weight or not. If consensus ever emerges, companies that bet on the wrong horse will get cracked down on, just like AI companion products got cracked down on recently.
Do you think there was a model a company wanted to keep closed, but the government ordered them to release weights? Conversely, of the closed-weight models, do you think there were any models the company wanted to make open, but the government ordered them to only offer API access? Because if you think the government always approved what companies were planning to do anyway, that's compatible with what I mean by "choosing not to provide input."
bwest87 · · focus · HN ↗
I think this explains why they are open sourcing broadly. It's not to be nice. It's a strategic play by the Chinese government to help ensure there are many players in this race and not too much power accumulates to American labs (even if American labs benefit in the process)
yorwba · · focus · HN ↗
There is no rule that every Chinese LLM company must open-source their models, and many don't.
singularity2001 · · focus · HN ↗
(Similar to how U.S. labs have NSA leadership)
yorwba · · focus · HN ↗
Even if there's a party member at the C-level of some company making day-to-day business decisions, that doesn't necessarily mean they're carrying out detailed instructions from higher-ups in the party as opposed to following their own best judgment. The CCP generally doesn't micro-manage everything, but operates more in a "mission tactics"-like way, where the top level gives out a broad goal that gets condensed down into a slogan like "new productive forces," and interpreting and elaborating on the details is left to lower levels who seek to align their initiatives with the top-level goals (e.g. by describing AI as a "new productive force") and initiatives that appear successful will get blessed as official policy.
That different companies follow different strategies when it comes to model releases is clear evidence that there is no unified party line on this question yet.
jack_pp · · focus · HN ↗
Maybe because there is enough given away that there's a lot of competition they may let other companies do whatever they want but to think the CCP isn't managing this is insane to me
yorwba · · focus · HN ↗
jack_pp · · focus · HN ↗
I find it hard to believe the decision to open source any chinese model wasn't approved or heavily considered by the CCP.
yorwba · · focus · HN ↗