wasfgwp

And you know.. the actual design for plenty of these chips. By that definition Apple is also an Asian company..

> with EU tooling

That is only a (vital) part of the supply chain, there are plenty of other components.

In relative terms there is no innovation happening outside of that and some other smaller companies providing highly specialized components that are a part of the supply chain.

There isn’t just much if anything to brag about. ASML is great but it’s effectively a monopoly (for the time being) due to a large extent some correct historical choices.

You are implying that any successful person should strive to achieve something like that? Or what point are you even trying to trying to make?

Maybe, but that’s an opinion on what you think might happen. So far that has not been the case.

But yeah currently you can ask their models exactly the same controversial question (from the CCP perspective) in Chinese and the answer would be very different than the one in English.

> And since high quality content is suppressed, there is likely less high quality training sets

For now it seems that the Chinese labs are more interested in maximizing the quality and competitiveness of their models instead of lobotomizing them to enforce compliance with some sort of political agenda.

That might change of Chinese models might surpass Western ones in the future. Which is why competition is necessary to discourage them from doing thay.

> It's unlikely for both the hardware and the software of a Chinese GPU to deliver what's boasted in its marketing material.

Not currently sure. Chinese cars were pretty crap as well a few decades ago (and same applies to countless other example) so there is at least sufficient precedent to believe that China might close this gap eventually (and they clearly have been over the recent years when it comes to GPUs)

> I suppose it’s just my misconception, sure.

I don’t think you are actually arguing with me.

While there might be other companies offering better terms the product quality of the first company might outweigh that from the perspective of the consumer. Of course one might argue that if a company is in a position to do that it’s effectively a monopoly and if all major market participants are engaging in that it’s effectively an oligopoly (or a case of implicit collusion)

And another (maybe less controversial example) is establishing minimal quality standards for at least certain products like food and drugs (i.e. the laissez faire offhands approach to that e.g. in the early 1900s resulted in some severe issues) because effectively that means that companies are selling products with hidden defects.

Perhaps, but that’s because they are just objectively worse for many tasks than GPT/Claude. I don’t see how that ties to censorship inside of China.

> censorship limits the amount of high quality training sets by limiting the amount of all training sets

Well again, I don’t really understand how is the lack of high quality Chinese datasets matter much if they have access to English/etc. datasets. That’s only an issue to their users inside of China.

> not have access to commercial-scale advanced nodes

Well the gap was way bigger a few years ago. If Chinese companies can at some point produce GPUs that are competitive cost wise i.e. they are willing to tolerate significantly lower margins than Nvidia (whose margins are obscene) that’s not a huge issue.

No, they are useful for any compute provider who can host these models and sell inference. Which effectively puts a cap on whatever the Chinese companies can charge. So longterm that means that their margins are limited to cost + some low margin.

If they are making money by selling tokens then anyone who has sufficient compute to host their models can make more than the Chinese labs since they don’t have any R&D costs.

Coincidentally it’s where the British version of the Office is set

That’s even less true in the US these days, though

OpenAI and Anthropic are extremely bloated compared to the Chinese labs. They have thousands of extremely well paid people working for them. Deepseek I think has a couple of hundred and I doubt they are paid a lot.

Of course compute for training is expensive but I doubt that’s necessarily the overwhelming majority of the operating costs for Anthropic/OpenAI

> on a market economy and non-state-owned labs

Sure the private companies developing these models are heavily interlinked with and even maybe partially owned by the government. But its a matter of degree. Since that’s the situation in the US similar in how these companies both shape government policy directly and in how the government is constantly intervening and shaping their behavior outside of any regulatory framework.

The US government is both heavily protectionist and interventionist these days.

> next guy

Good try GPT-5…

Having limited amounts of high quality Chinese data to train on doesn’t really decrease or affect the appeal of these models to the rest of the world. I don’t think the CCP is restricting or limiting the datasets that models can be trained on.

Also the models themselves don’t even seem to be censored or restricted that much. If the Chinese government is fine with the guardrails being on the API level and maybe even restricts the usage of external providers that’s again a net benefit to everyone else since they would have little incentives to force Chinese companies to lobotomize their models.

You are probably about capacity so we can only hope that Huawei and others can catch up and break Nvidia’s monopoly (since Intel and AMD suck too much too much to accomplish anything useful that’s the next best thing)

Also Chinese labs are actually still publishing research publicly which alone would accelerate and increase the competitiveness of open AI models developed in the US or even Europe.

The fraud part and using stolen accounts or credit cards or blatantly violating the terms and conditions (i.e. reselling subscriptions not using outputs in certain ways somebody might not like) is indeed categorically different.

Using uncopyrightable outputs of an AI model obtained legitimately to train your model is not inherently interlinked with any of those things. I don’t really see how the model being proprietary or “open” is particularly relevant when talking about the outputs.

Even using the word “distilling” in this case is deceptive and biased. It implies that the Chinese are somehow stealing Anthropic’s models or their weights and somehow directly transforming them into new models. That’s certainly not what’s happening in any direct sense.

e.g. what if I agreed to send all my Claude code session files to Deepseek or whoever? There would be nothing wrong about that since I and not Anthropic own those files and can do whatever I want with them. Using certain different ways to obtain them of course could be highly illegal.

I mean you are right in a way of course, it’s just a matter of degree and perspective, though. If one thing is moderately morally wrong and the other is potentially lightly morally wrong I don’t think it’s fair to equate them.

To me the situation is a bit like Google coming out and saying that its morally wrong for someone to build a competing open operating system on top of Android while stripping all Google services and “stealing” their ad revenue. Just seems silly and hypocritical.

I mean otherwise it’s a very slippery slope, effectively it would give Anthropic the ownership of any code generated by its models..

LLM outputs are not copyrightable (or rather the user is effectively the only one who can own it). It would be problematic if Anthropic owned all the software generated using Claude..

There is no second “wrong” here.

Model outputs are not copyrightable. I think that was already established?

Or do you think that Anthropic should own all the code generated by Claude? Surely that would be somewhat problematic?

If Anthropic feels that some of their customers are breaking their EULA (nothing to do with copyright infringement though) they are free to stop doing business with them. Maybe even sue them in civil court for breach of contract (again nothing to do with copyright infringement though)

To be fair I find it hard to take this too seriously, shouldn’t it be trivial to just replace “Claude” with any other string in your “distillation” dataset?

If not there is not there is no grey zone whatsoever.

That entirely settles it and there isn’t much else to say about.

If Anthropic feels that other countries are violating their EULA well they are free to stop doing business with them.

Of course that might change in the future but as long as the Chinese companies continue publishing their research and models it only makes it easier for third parties to catch up with them.