> 3.8-27B announced for Friday
Maybe I’m misreading this or some other post, I thought QWEN was stepping away from releasing these models for local consumption
Maybe I’m misreading this or some other post, I thought QWEN was stepping away from releasing these models for local consumption
Sadly they seem to not be releasing a sparse 35b A3b or anything inbetween "too large to host for mortals" and "fits into a consumer rtx". Probably not to eat away their profits on their API serving. 120b - 300b is a dead space right now, very few good releases in that size range. (I know there are, but the big labs aren't releasing stuff here)
They literally announced their motivations and world few a few weeks ago at the Shanghai AI conference. They want to ally with the global south. They see AI like the industrial revolution: the global south was left behind for a long time and, as a result has been exploited and has struggled to develop for a long time. They see open AI as a way to level the playing field to prevent such "new historical injustices" (in the sense of the Century of Humiliation and the Opium Wars). Concrete policies to back this rhetoric include technology transfer and training programs for the global south. They frame this latter not as philantropy but as generosity, in the sense that it generates goodwill and what goes around comes around. They believe that helping the global south and cultivating relationships will eventually help China.
Think about it. Your local businesses are not charities either. That doesn't make them bad, nor does it mean you derive no benefit. It still benefits you to cultivate good relationships with them.
No matter what you believe is their "true" intentions, offering 5000 training and tech transfer positions to the global south is a very concrete and unambiguous move. As are forgiving African loans and unilaterally offering zero trade tariffs.
I'm not saying that China's investment in the South hasn't had positive effects. But "generosity" is rarely a relevant lens when analyzing international relations.
Well, yes? Why does it have to be either-or?
> But "generosity" is rarely a relevant lens when analyzing international relations.
Automatically assuming nefarious intentions behind all moves is also rarely a relevant lens.
And as I said, and I'm not sure why you keep ignoring it, but I define "generosity" in the sense of mutual benefit. Being nice to your neighbors and helping them, benefits you due to generated goodwill. I'm explicitly not defining generosity in the sense of selfless philanthropy where you get nothing back. The idea that doing good things for others eventually results in good things coming your way, and thus that one should do good things for others even it's selfishly motivated (and also that there's nothing wrong with this), is not a crazy idea.
In a lot of cultures (Chinese included), gifts are not simply gifts. There is the social expectation that the gift is reciprocated. Western cynicists may call this "manipulation" or "influence". The Chinese see this as the start of a relationship of a cycle of mutual gift giving.
Nothing happens on a geopolitical scale, from the US, China or anyone else, simply because of generosity.
China also puts pressure on rich chinese flaunting their riches.
They have a common prosperity initiative.
The trouble here is how more infrastructure helps OpenAI and Anthropic continue billing at 10/100x Chinese model rates.
Either their models have to be better (to justify the higher prices and margin) or their inference has to be lower cost (which isn't going to happen until they move away from Nvidia).
The best outcome for us is the one where they all keep competing and undermining each other until the end of time while providing us all with better models and cheaper hardware to run them with. The US corporations in particular should never be allowed to achieve their "you'll buy intelligence from us on a meter" rent seeking dream.
It's not just according to you.
Without open weights, what happens if you get blacklisted from Anthropic and OpenAI? If AI becomes a standard tool for programming like a compiler, you've effectively been Blackballed from the field of programming. Full Stop. This is "Right to Read" coming home: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html
In addition, without open source competitors to your core tools, we KNOW what happens. Cadence and Synopsys and a megabuck per engineer per year ... that's what happens.
The real policy mechanisms around open AI models are also incentives. Various cities have programs to pay companies for releasing open models. They subsidize compute through vouchers. They reward universities and students for open source collaboration.
This isn't some black box. The policies are written down, anybody can read their AI+ policy papers.
Alibaba went back to releasing open models way before the Xi speech from a few weeks ago. The cause is pressure from researchers, who believe in openness, as well as the competition who keeps releasing open models. This is Chinese "involution" at work. And the subsidies also help, of course.