Hacker News Reader

Comment by DangitBobby | Hacker News Reader

I think your analysis assumes current closed SOTA models have no moat, which isn't a given considered the protectionism the Trump administration is already considering for US AI firms.

View on HN

It is a given. Unless the Trump admin figures out how to ban 1s and 0s, you can't stop Chinese labs from open sourcing their models. They can certainly ban new providers from using the Chinese models, but they can't ban Canadian ones, European ones, other Asian countries etc. from setting up provider proxies and bypassing those rules. Then what, great firewall of USA? Block off all internet traffic to other countries? Bye bye economy.

I think the burden of proof is on the closed SOTA model providers to prove they have a moat, because common sense indicates they don't.

Yes, banning 1s and 0s is completely impossible and unprecedented /s. I wouldn't choose either as a default until the dust settles. Either way, I wanted to point out the unstated assumption. Whether you personally believe it's a foregone conclusion or not, it's an essential part of the logic chain that not everyone will agree to.

It's a gamble, stats, so what is the probability that moat can be protected to the tune of trillions of dollars of incremental enterprise value creation in the AI industry? Would you bet your retirement funds on it? Would you want the government to bail them out if a financial collapse occurs because of it? I think most reasonable people do not think it's worth the risk, and the more important part I highlighted is the fundamental economics of this industry were never worth the investment/risk. Clever capitalists will always find a way, which this accounting shell game is evidence of.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com