HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
66% Positive
Analyzed from 26963 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#models#government#companies#access#open#china#don#model#more#chinese
Discussion (1206 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48689028
[1]https://archive.is/aiJiq
As a European, the way I see it, Europe declared fealty to the US and relinquished its sovereignty a long time ago, sadly.
Also, the way these agreements tend to work is that you agree that you won't source from the 'enemy side' i.e. China. It works this way for NATO and it will work the same way here.
open source != open weights
open weights model is like... Winamp for example. it's free, you can download it and use it however you like, you could also do some binary patching or dll injections to alter it functionality but it's not enough to develop next version.
the same is with ai models, weights are the binary final artifacts. for development and improvements you need to have training data, pipelines, RL harnesses, etc.
also of you believe Chinese companies will be releasing weights indefinitely, you are not understanding motivations.
Chinese companies spend significant amounts of money to train a model so why they are releasing it for free? they basically provide researchers starting point for developing tooling and optimizations for serving the model in return. and also get some PR. They also do not have to pay for inference of those models that much, as they probably serve them with loss anyways to gain market. they are gov sponsored so money are not issue there, so they try to speedrun their way to what US companies have. And guess what happens when they reach it. they will stop releasing weights and increase pricing or will use them for gov purposes.
> The Commission backs the Dutch [...]. The European position fragments before it has properly formed.
That the EU would, after recognizing AI's value, freely give up control of its few advantages to the US, despite of this being a conventional trade issue which the EU has experience with, seems like a very pessimistic assumption.
(I stopped reading after that part.)
At the same historical turning point when Europeans are finally waking up to the need to become less dependent on their so called US ally for weapons production and security, they are immediately choosing to become dependent on the next layer of critical infrastructure.
Instead of learning the obvious lesson, Europe seems ready to purchase the future from whoever Washington allows it to purchase from. It used to be the guns, now it's the AI.
It is so idiotic and short sighted that you can barely even blame anyone who keeps exploiting this over and over again. It is always the same story.
What government wants to have their population use foreign AI. (Not many). Only issue I see is good enough is what the majority might be okay with.
US intelligence has gamed this out and sees risks at the fringe - advanced artificial intelligence moves the needle the most in countries economically & politically dominated by the USA, the Global South are the targets of this, not US startups.
What's with this hallucination? The thread is about GPT-5.6. Your laptop can't even run gemma 4 unquantized bfloat16, which is light years behind GPT-5.6, and running it is light years from training it. If something that a laptop can train is insanely powerful for you, you don't need to worry about this thread at all.
- Regulation like this is dangerous because the accessibility and capability of open-source AI training and inference are limited;
- Regulation like this is hollow because the accessibility and capability of open-source AI training and inference are unlimited.
It’s rather straightforward to think through. If China (they’re practically the only competitor) built a sufficiently advanced AI system would they allow it to propagate on the free market? Of course not. The fact of the matter is that they are behind, even if it’s just a little bit, so the best strategy they have is to try and compete with “good enough” models with lower/subsidized cost - but that is a losing strategy because AI is and always has been a winner-take-all strategy.
Likewise if, idk, France someone built an AI system that was valuable do you think they’d just hand it over for sworn enemy Donald J. Trump to utilized? Of course not.
The American strategy in the context of the current geopolitical landscape is the only valid one and the obvious one. If you find yourself criticizing the American strategy it’s because you aren’t in the arena where you would, inevitably, make the same decision to restrict access.
This isn't really going to achieve much besides incentivizing the growth of non-US models and minimizing market access for US-based models. I was expecting the US government to try to ban foreign models, which is also a self-own but orders of magnitude less than this. All this will do is greatly diminish the influence of the US in the future, and minimize the benefits they might reap from a global LLM explosion. It'd be like if 30 years ago, China decided that their manufacturing could only be used by white-listed individuals. Their economy and influence wouldn't be even a fraction of what it is today.
People claim that AGI is. AI is turning out to be a fairly competitive but “normal” product. Companies carving out niches on cost, quality, and speed.
If it was a winner take all OpenAI’s head start would have been decisive. For years ChatGPT was far ahead of everyone, then Anthropic released Opus 3, then OpenAI released 4o, then in mid 2025 it seemed like everyone had strong reasoning models including Google with Gemini 2.5, and now Claude is probably the best coding model. So taking the top spot is not a guarantee you can hold it.
Also the top model becomes a prime target for distillation, making it easier for competitors to keep up.
Looking at most of the available evidence, Mythos is an incremental upgrade over other models and nowhere near the implied advancement that this seems to point to. I guess you could be right in that a sufficient advancement would cause this type of withholding of it, but I think it's kind of silly to think that the US has reached that level.
AGI sure. But I don't think we're going to get there in our lifetimes, if ever. There are too many structural and physical limitations. One everyone seems to be catching onto now is that they're running out of human data and are incestuously feeing AI output to itself as input.
Current state AI is barely an improvement over where it was fifty years ago. We just have stronger hardware and more content to train on. We need a new paradigm. One that hasn't come in half a century.
I generally find the Chinese models to be superior. If you look at the token pricing or hosting cost it’s still about 80% margin on Chinese models. Deep cuts should still be possible.
it sucks that we're in a place where the us has an dishonest leadership, because the current situation would be pretty reasonable if any other admin was in charge.
let models go free, until one proves dangerous in the real world then require gov approval after that.
I don't think anyone rational would have the position everyone should have insta access at the same time to the highest model once it crosses the point of enabling actual dangerous things.
I don't understand how you leap from "US govt. decides who gets to use GPT-5" to "limit new vendors from competing with OpenAI".
Can you walk me through the logic?
wait, are you saying a competitor needs access to an OpenAI model in order to build a competing model?
So you're a new vendor with a GPT-5.6 or Mythos class model. How do you suppose the regulations are going to work? First you need to get on the list of companies that are allowed to release models, and then you need to have a whole system for limiting access. Both are going to be hugely expensive, on top of training new models already being insanely expensive to begin with.
Thus, it's not a legal limit, but a real practical limit because it's too expensive. If only OpenAI and Anthropic and Google can afford to jump through the hoops, they've effectively gotten to "limit new vendors from competing with OpenAI".
So your thesis is that someone has the resources to create a model at the level of Mythos or GPT 5.6 but bot have the resources to jump through the concomitant legal requirements?
Surely that’s unlikely?
Isnt this all export control based? If so its not regulatory capture for a few reasons. If not disregard this.
1) new entrants wont get export controlled because they arent leading edge
2) a new company could just implement KYC. It could even be a competitive advantage (Anthropic wont or cant)
That sounds like more than just export control.
This means that big company A that the president has a business interest in could get access to the most powerful AIs, while a startup competing with it doesn't.
This is export control, where the US government seeks to leverage the fact that these frontier models are US made. This is then leveraged against opponents, and likely also just for grift. There’s also perhaps a little legitimate worry about the implications of free access to, but that is secondary to the real goal.
This is such hyperbole. You might be able to train a model that's merely useful in a single domain, but to say you can train an 'insanely powerful' model on consumer hardware is laughable.
If only he had known he could simply use his laptop to train them.
If GLM-6 is made publicly available[1], will that change your predictions of how they will behave in the future, or your understanding of their motivations in the present?
[1] I am certainly no expert of Chinese AI policy, but I fear you are attributing US values and goals to the Chinese govt.
From where I stand, they appear to be very different though. China is seeking to increase influence, whereas the US (seems to be) seeking to become more insular. China is actively persuing the world-leader role, while the US dismantles soft-power tools like USaid, and alienates countries pursuing obviously flawed military excursions.
In fact, you generally don't want them directly telling the regulators what to do. Instead, the regulators make complex, costly rules that only large establishment players can follow. The regulators look like they're doing their job; the regulated enjoy higher margins and protection from disruption.
* with the government requiring the regulated to obtain approval to add each customer, they're losing a massive number of their customers
* and even if a customer gets approved, every such customer now sees that access to the regulated can (and has been) shutoff with no notice if the gov doesn’t like the provider or customer - it's now a massive supply chain risk for any customer to use a regulated provider
* the regulated losing a massive part of their customer base for both of the above reasons means significant impairment of their revenue, as well as their valuation, and staying ahead of their competitors and open models requires massive ongoing investment
Open models are mere months behind.
We already saw the terms moved under us once with Fable, the retention policy changed and some requests started routing to a weaker model, none of us small operators had any say in that. Now access itself is a government decisions.
For anyone building on top of these APIs that's the real barrier, not the rule-following overhead but the fact that the ground can shift mid-flight and you can't negotiate with whoever's moving it.
Which is exactly why open weights start looking less like ideology and more like risk management.
So, while OpenAI may not in a legal/technical sense, be the benefactory, that is not required for the term to apply, AND they may as well be considered party to the creation of the regulation since they have openly lobbied for it, openly inserted themselves into the government apparatus both formally and informally, and likely are co-conspirators to whatever Trump's autocratic self-enrichment scheme is.
Can you?
Uncle Sam: For national security reasons starting from now on every purchase of GPU model with higher than X Petaflops will need written permission by the US president
Anthropic and OpenAI: Look poor citizens, we are willing to share our capacity with you in limited form, by using our LLM you can avoid spending 35 years in the waiting list to buy a GPU, by the way, to simplify pricing, here is our new pricing with 5700% increase. Enjoy
Powerful enough to shock someone in 2010 with a wikipedia chat bot? Possibly.
Powerful enough to shock jaded HN commentators right now? Possibly not.
When models are good, expectations are adjusted accordingly to deliver things on par with the whole industry, you can't just say, I have built my own Intel Pentium II, now I will try to use it to compile Electron App and run 3DS Max there
Explain. The labs have been spending about $100 million in compute to train a model.
With the twist that it will end up involving payments that directly benefit Trump, following the Mafia business model that he learned in the construction industry and that he's brought to the White House.
Edit: Not saying whether AGI is right around the corner, that's a different discussion. I'm just saying that a serious possibility of AGI and an understanding of possible consequences will make a state act.
If that's impossible in any meaningful way, then yes, doesn't matter which color jersey the government is wearing, it's authoritarian.
look, i'm sorry, but this is a thoroughly solved problem by now.
Remember those weird conspiracies we used to have about universal surveillance; tracking and so forth? Well if you think back to those and whatever might happen with GPUs and hardware, and LLM restrictions or the likely age gating//ID’ing that is to come from this, that’s a good guiding framework for how this will proceed and affect normal people.
Actually that sounds pretty reasonable considering current regulations regarding almost any other important resource / material that affect the general population.
It's worrying that with no formal and transparent policy framework that the government will be picking winners and losers and stifling innovation.
There's been no public policy, executive order, legislation, or otherwise on this, I wonder if anyone has filed FOIA requests for these decisions or the conversations between the Executive Branch and AI companies.
Doubtful it'd hold in court; this admin would have to show that it's not corruption, because we'd all assume otherwise.
Companies are responsible for demonstrating criteria to export (for example) a nerfed version (Fable) of an export controlled item (Mythos)
Nothing here is novel, unusual, capricious, or … fascisistic.
No amount of rules can stop people who are willing to break them. Only enforcement can.
It’s a perfectly good system for government regulation.
It's N=1, but I believe both that the EU approach discourages investment and innovation in the EU, and that this US policy will do the same in the US.
My opinion on EU regulation would flip 180 degrees if they offered any kind of pre-clearance where you could propose a product, feature, or policy and be told in advance if it meets their subjective requirements.
IMO you can have clear, specific requirements in advance, or you can have a body that provides interpretations of spirit-of-the-rules regulations in advance. Having neither is a problem.
(yes, I'm aware of the argument that if you tell companies what's legal in advance they will just do the bare minimum or find loopholes... I don't find that to be a legit rule of law system)
LLMs are still a little loosey goosey, and we are right on the cusp (if not there already) for an agent to hack a bank and steal money for some rando teenager with a penchant for jail breaking.
The regulations are and will be negative, but don't lose sight of what LLMs can do off the leash.
The appropriate level would be regulation though? Like I just don't get how we can argue that arbitrarily throttling companies is ok.
there is no such thing as an LLM "off the leash", it's not a dog, and even if it was a dog the person responsible is the owner. What is this bizarre attitude to a piece of software that makes people think existing laws don't apply?
If your LLM agent hacks a bank, you have hacked a bank, you will go to prison and that's entirely sufficient. People have been hacking banks for decades now, it didn't require the government to regulate C compilers and Emacs.
I wonder if he understands why, now.
Anthropic was "begging" to make it harder for competing companies to be founded.
Which is the government’s own fault.
Elon Musk talked back in 2018 about how he went to Washington and met with Obama and Congress, but they did nothing.
In 2020 Andrew Yang’s entire run for president was centered around the risk of AI displacing job. He lost, no one did anything.
A couple years later we say the consumer facing LLMs start to roll out. Still, no one does anything.
They have time to micromanage the industry, but in all these years they haven’t found the time to establish any meaningful policy?
Google had been pussy-footing AI research due to deathly fear of awakening an ASI, because their safety teams still had no answers.
Then Altman came along...
Meanwhile EU prevented itself from building competitive LLMs in the first place.
It's a way to clearly agree on ground rules that you can plan around, not more, not less.
The alternative is not no rules, do whatever you want. The alternative is executive capriciousness arbitrarily setting the rules based on whims and messing up your plans.
I like the US approach better: regulate when the need for it arises, not before when you don’t know how the situation is going to evolve.
I agree. But that need has absolutely arisen. The US government is not exactly the best steward for this kind of thing, but some model other than "race each other as fast as we can" is desperately needed here.
Honestly, with open source models I don't think this regulation means anything because there's no way they can really regulate what's coming out of china. I don't think this affects innovation in AI much at all (unless your definition of innovation is "pour more money into diminishing scaling"). It's mostly just bad news for the US frontier labs, and based on their behavior I don't feel sad for them AT ALL. Like, they've basically alienated the vast majority of people by outright threatening their livelihoods or even society at large, and now we're supposed to feel sorry for them because they can't just go around saying "THIS WILL REPLACE ALL JOBS IN A MONTH!" without consequences?
Do you think the Chinese will go parading around that they've created the greatest cyberweapon known to man, and the CCP will be totally cool with the Americans being first in line to buy tokens, because hey, free market?
They would sooner put all their own employees in an incinerator than allow that to happen.
sorry we don't lie about that
Like seriously, to the people that think this is a doomsday thing, if you're serious about that line of thought then STOP DOING IT. It's like the people that are arguing that AI is conscious. IF you truly believe that, then we've just reinvented slavery, and again, STOP!
I 100% do not accept the "it's inevitable anyway so morality is out the window". We also have nuclear weapons but we don't need to rush into World War 3. Also nothing inevitable requires trillions of dollars a year to advance because it's so deeply unprofitable.
They were in the tank for Trump because they thought Biden/Harris would stifle them… and here we are.
If the Chinese models remain predominantly open source then it would probably be for the best. Unfortunately I'm not convinced they will, with examples like Qwen Max showing what could happen.
Alibaba making Qwen close up shop for its best models isn’t that surprising, though sad.
The worry is that if the US models are locked up like this, then there’s less reason for China to commodify its complement through open weights…
If the USA continues to put barriers into the release of models, open and/or foreign models will start to out perform them.
If open models are competitive enough nothing will stop even US companies from running them locally.
open weight models - will be deemed too risky to be out in the open - since they can be abused by "bad actors" (unwashed masses)
America bans intel and amd from exporting chips.
Whats next.
I’m sure they are wondering just as much. I assume exhorting Anthropic/OpenAI for personal bribes, favorable government contracts with no restrictions and public acts of submission.
It's protecting people from themselves, so basically like the safeguards already included in the models.
ppl are acting like limited release is unprecedented when, in fact, has been the norm until a few years ago.
You can argue that, by government, they meant some legislative process, but I'd argue that regulation via bad executive order is much better than regulation via bad legislation because the former is tractable. I say this as an EO minimalist.
I hope that not too far in the future a responsible government* will become the bottleneck for innovation in the AI space.
*obviously not the current
I mean, insofar as you could frame each new model as its own patentable invention, "patent secrecy" would be an existing policy framework that clearly justifies what's been happening here.
1. Some private company or individual invents something.
2. But the state wants a monopoly on the new thing's military use-cases (against other states/militaries.) So the state forcibly classifies the invention at patent time.
3. But the individual/company still wants to make more money than the state is giving them as compensation for their own use of the patent. They want to sell to the private market. But, of course, the state doesn't want to permit this, as arbitrary private parties could in turn resell to foreign state actors.
4. So a compromise is struck: private use is now made deny-by-default. The state permits the individual or company to sell into the private market, given: a rigorous per-customer KYB background-checking process; strong supply-chain tracing; contractual stipulations prohibiting resale; and the customer use-case being transformative or cost-prohibitive to extract the original invention from.
5. As such, big established enterprise customers who want the invention for private use in their internal industrial processes, can somewhat-easily jump all those hoops to acquire access to it; but everyone else is now basically locked out.
Sound familiar?
You think there is a record?
I can't find the exact blog post (maybe on simonwillison.net ?) but I read people predicting that know your customer laws would be coming to AI if it gets more powerful several years ago already.
Powerful technology that can do immense harm in the hand of individuals/small groups is the most obvious (and legitimate!) target for regulation. Maybe Anthropics hubbub around Mythos made all of this happen earlier than it would have, but it was going to happen (if the models are going to get as capable as valuations imply they will).
(Edit: Of course this doesn't mean it can be effectively regulated in practice)
Further more, no one actually gets hurt if we start rolling these things out more slowly.
Rolling them out selectively according to the whims of an administration that disdains fair process, tears down the institutions that could potentially provide and legitimise reasonable regulation, etc... well, that's another topic.
The Project is almost here.
The market will demand such a framework. I suspect that's the larger idea here, in that Amodei not only wants to be in the room when that framework is written, he wants to be at the head of the table.
He apparently wants it so badly he's willing to set back his own company's IPO to make it happen, given that there can be no pure-play AI IPOs until the regulatory picture is sorted out.
What Trump is doing at the moment is, as usual, only a distraction.
The startup-brained among us never learned the first rule of business which is to not fuck over your benefactor.
They might try to extend it to downloadable open weight models, but honestly they might not even bother with that. The goal is to keep people from competing on lucrative contracts or the hosting market.
We must clutch our pearls and cite National Security as a reason to pick winners and losers, just like the government did for Fable.
This is not something to joke about, its real.
That’s a lot of information that could fall into the boogeyman’s hands.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-i...
You would think that this government, attempting to puppeteer the most rapidly growing industry in the world, would have more people outraged.
Where are all of the people crying "Communist"? This is one of those moments where it is less of an overreaction.
As predicted, [0] it has now been applied to OpenAI and soon anyone else releasing highly capable models.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48511849
MAGA is bad enough. Imagine if the current batch of US progressives, who have 0 idea how any of this works, wins the presidency and gets to decide who gets to use it.
Do you think they'll try to dictate who gets to use it?
I knew the time would come when individuals on personal subscriptions get the short end of the stick. Didn't think it would come so soon. I hope we're not too badly deprecated in the months to come.
Looks like I've got to improve my DeepSeek workflows.
Even worse than not getting access is getting fired. Since less than 20% of our developers reside outside US and our management is suffering from AI hype, they can decide to close foreign offices as a way to get access to new models.
edit: grammar
There's a big difference between being priced out of a market option and the government saying you literally cannot buy it. We should all be wary of government controls like this.
How is this a rational argument?
Are you so self centered that you only care about government decisions that affect ONLY the present you?
“I don’t care that the government made prescription glasses illegal, I can see fine without them”
> We don’t believe this kind of government access process should become the long-term default. It keeps the best tools from users, developers, enterprises, cyber defenders, and global partners who need them. We are taking this short-term step because we believe it is the strongest path to broader availability in the coming weeks, while we work with the Administration to develop the cyber Executive Order framework and a repeatable process for future model releases.
It seems like the exclusion is temporary. There is no process for individual users to get access to the new model _right now_.
That's how authoritarian governments become authoritarian.
Just as a reminder, the claim (only two comments ago) was that it will never reach people and be limited only to certain government-approved companies.
The press release pretty clearly outlines the next steps that will eventually get it into people's hands.
That is the claim that is being refuted. Nothing about the obvious government overreach happening here. You are the one that decided to bring that in as a strawman.
This is how it started.
Only researchers were able to get access to the early super dangerous AI models that were much worse than you can now run locally on your phone.
There are now Asian models coming , optimized focused on cybersecurity defense at a high level, so I suspect this will be a relatively moot point soon.
LLMs are not great at creating exploits, but they are really good at detecting them. That asymmetry alone is enough to destroy the “offensive capabilities” narrative. Yes, mythos can find exploitable bugs, even write bench exploits. But real exploits require a good dose of human psychology, and most of the tools needed are off the shelf available anyway. You still need a real cybersecurity expert to effectively weaponize a zero day into a deployable exploit.
But an LLM can inspect payloads, packages, and blobs en masse and find those exploits in a way that was wholly impractical before, so the asymmetric attack advantage is dissolved by strong LLMs.
The USA is trying to protect its cyberwarfare advantage, not protect against attackers. The exact opposite, actually. Porous security is a huge advantage to technologically advanced state actors.
Source?
Look up 360 security technology tulongfeng and yitianzhen , as well as Sakana AI’s Fugu series, IIRC.
GLM5.2 is also excellent, it found things in our codebase that 5.5 and opus 4.8 both missed.
This is like the battle between PostgreSQL and Oracle all over. Move up market, isolate yourself to enterprises, and watch while everyone else builds on PostgreSQL and erodes any technical advantage you had, until people just stop talking about you altogether.
But like you said, they will try to control it and fail. Like they always do.
OpenAI and Anthropic did not call for the US Government to limit who Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 could be rolled out to.
Amodei. June 2026 https://darioamodei.com/post/policy-on-the-ai-exponential
> We're proposing stronger regulation of the technology, proposing giving the government the ability to, again, in a narrow way, block deployment of unsafe technology
Amodei. June 2026 https://abcnews.com/Business/exclusive-anthropic-ceo-calls-s...
> This is not to suggest that we won't need any regulation or safeguards. We obviously do, urgently, like we have for other powerful technologies
Altman. Feb 2026 https://techxplore.com/news/2026-02-openai-altman-world-urge...
> He gave several suggestions for how a new agency in the US could regulate the industry - including "a combination of licensing and testing requirements" for AI companies, which he said could be used to regulate the "development and release of AI models above a threshold of capabilities".
Altman. May 2023 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65616866
etc. etc.
Then laws will be made to forbid organizations who use models other than those from the sanctioned labs to participate in critical projects on national security concerns.
All of a sudden, no business would risk using open source models anymore.
I hope they do it! It will have a positive long-term effect just like the Iran war footgun accelerates renewable energy transition.
It's one thing to get a copy of "illegal" software and use it yourself. The stakes are basically zero and you almost certainly will not get caught
It's a completely different thing to run a business on it with dozens of employees and requiring the employees to break the law to do their job.
Maintaining a blessed whitelist is the way to go.
You cannot justify such a capex on AI anymore. This will drag down the us financial markets and economy too.
lol that’s a good one.
there is no need to imagine, this is what is literally happening
You're two steps behind.
It’s like the frog commenting that the 80C water is about to get hotter.
I mean, it's not really wrong. JD Vance recently said that Watergate would just be a "12 hour news cycle" if it happened today, and spouted some bullshit that "the deep state" took down Nixon. The takeaway from me was that corruption has become so normalized by the Trump administration that Watergate wouldn't even be such a big deal today, and, incredibly sadly, I think he's probably right.
Congress, if any of those creatures were vertebrates.
For the next few months, though? Nothing will. Those in the in-crowd will line each others' pockets at the expense of the rest of us. I will say that the recent election results and the building bipartisan angst over data centers and surveillance (e.g. Flock) are encouraging.
Zuckerberg has specifically said they received requests from the government, they complied with some (as they have a right to do), declined others (as they have a right to do), none of which was under duress, and the response to non-compliance was expressions of "frustration" by the government officials.
By contrast, OpenAI's largest competitor just got kneecapped by the US government because they insisted that the US government comply with the contract terms the US government signed to literally months previously.
i dont remember whatsapp suddenly being turned off
That’s definitely as concerning as Trump taking bribes and then picking winners and losers in the market.
Trump is worse and I just "whatabout Biden" and leave it at that."
Catch phrases like this, I swear, are half the reason so many people have a mind an inch deep and a mile wide.
These days, they just do it with crypto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$Trump
I'm hoping this is a call to action for local AI.
Uh... no, that is not actually a good explanation.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/us-open-up-exports-nvidi...
It's easy if only enterprise users have access. It just becomes yet another compliance issue.
They won't let the public use it, even if citizens, because that would undermine the goal of controlling its use.
> I'm hoping this is a call to action for local AI.
If US frontier models stop being publicly available then they stop mattering, it also becomes hard to justify further investment in US AI companies if distribution is so locked down. The Chinese models will be the frontier.
I think the trend will be running open-weight models with the provider of your choice. You can always switch providers, avoiding vendor lock-in, with the trade-off of privacy concerns. You have to trust that the provider actually behaves the way they claim.
I would wager frontier LLM achievements will plateau, and open-weight models will catch up. Then OpenAI and Anthropic will have significantly less value prop. It is hard to say when that may happen. People regard open-weight models about 4-10 months behind frontier models, so its not like those using open-weight models need to wait long to catch up.
Ant Group: China halted Ant’s IPO and forced a restructuring
Alibaba: China fined and politically disciplined Alibaba
Didi: China punished Didi after its US listing by removing its apps, freezing users, forcing delisting
Tutoring platforms: banned profit from core school-subject tutoring.
Tencent gaming: restricted youth gaming froze approvals
NetEase and gaming companies: licence freeze stopped game companies from shipping games.
Meituan: fined Meituan and forced changes to its labour and platform model.
Huya/DouYu: blocked Tencent’s game-streaming merger, stopping commercial consolidation in a major entertainment market.
Boss Zhipin / Full Truck Alliance: froze new users after listging in the US
Crypto companbies: banned crypto trading and mining, forcing exchanges offshore.
Think it's not happening to the US?
tourism - people afraid to visit
tariffs - wrecking ball to all businesses
defence - why would anyone buy US weapons after Greenland and Canada
internet clouds - Greenland made Europe decide that the US clouds can't be trusted, now sovereign computing matters and MS/AWS/Google are feeling it
finance - no one trusts the US not to turn people into "non members of global society" by banning them from visa and credit card and banking systems
Because anyone who used these companies' products in China would see a pretty large ecosystem that's making a lot of money.
They're different things. Just like you can be the most famous actor or singer and still be poor. Being popular, having good products and actually making money is not the same.
And it's all relative. Today if NASDAQ dropped 20% the world would declare it in ruins. Are the companies still "alive"? Yes.
> Because anyone who used these companies' products in China would see a pretty large ecosystem that's making a lot of money.
Not true. A lot of them e.g. the public listed 1s have reported increased competition and reduced margins.
If NASDAQ dropped 20%, it would have returned to the level last seen three months ago, in March 2026. Calling that "in ruins" would be a pretty big stretch.
Political priorities and good governance is why we have government.
An example of the ugly side of China private lending is what is termed "flesh loans". A young girl is forced to have nude pictures taken of her to secure her high interest loan repayment. Ant was going to put hundreds of billions in capital backing loans that had loosely controlled and often unethical/violent collections system.
Yes, curtailing loads of easy capital can be at odds with pressing domestic consumption growth. In this case, I think the government made a tough but decent decision.
Not really, no. What planet is this on?
- Tutoring platforms were a plague on Chineese youth that increased the weight of their already _very_ heavy load (tbh, i think and education reform might have been preferable, this is a stopgap, but at least it is something).
- Ant group was offering predatory consumption loans to rural China, which to me felt a lot like the "revolver credits" that plagued my country in the 80s and 90s and pushed to many to suicide (the surname cam from their english name, "revolving credit", and because my countryside had a lot of hunting rifle available to whomever). Considering how rural china is mistreaded by Chineese state and general government (and imho this is a real weakness in China politics), having this group by a huge fine for their practice and a general debt forgivness was great. Curtailing Ant's power is also good.
- Stopping consolidation is a great way to keep a market free.
- Crypto companies: mining diverted power from villages who couldn't compete on purchasing power to mining wharehouses in some state. The ban is great for the rural population at least. Also, if that can curtail the birth of Chineese cryptobros, great for the mental health of the country.
Why China crushed its tech giants https://www.wired.com/story/china-tech-giants-policy/
Why Big Tech May Never Recover in China https://time.com/6973119/china-big-tech-crackdown-backfiring...
Beijing can’t afford another crackdown on its tech companies https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/11/china-cant-afford-another-cr...
And even if foreign investors are more cautious now, there is plenty of money trapped by capital controls, so that it doesn't look like new tech companies have trouble raising capital anyway.
I'm assuming you don't have any working relations with any Chinese companies, because on-the-ground shows something much different than what these headlines promise.
Huh? US foreign military sales are up at all time highs
"Total exports by the United States, the world’s largest supplier of arms, increased by 27 per cent. This included a 217 per cent increase in US arms exports to Europe, according to new data published today by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)"
[https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2026/global-arms-f...]
...because the USA made it into the knockout stage. really scary stuff
It's the ONLY one (almost) that are actively tested and verified in real battles.
moving to open weight models is trivial now, with optimizations and stuff glm 5.2 is roughly the same price as the best models around from multiple vendors.
unless I could atleast try and see Sol perform like 10x better I don't really have a reason to switch back.
I used Fable for like what 2-3 days at most and didn't really feel it was so much better, only difference was I had to prompt it less, not to get what I want but to get to a working output. Code quality was still shit, still made bad plans and analysis and so on.
It was a lot better. I can't believe people say this.
If a clever hacker can get 10x results with an LLM, they're gonna outcompete the 90% that can't figure out how to replicate that result, and they'll be able to get about as much work done without that 90%
Factories, Agriculture, etc. - this is hardly the first time that pattern has played out.
Why do you say it was a lot better, what type of tasks were you testing it on?
What metric are you using for "better" here? If I've got a straightforward task GPT 5.5 is going to 1shot it anyway.
“Alice is supposedly smarter than Bob, but they both take the same time to tie their shoes.”
If Fable were released as open-weights, I doubt anyone would ever consider using GLM or any other models over it.
The excuse they give is borderline childish. I get the thing about slow rollout, make sure partners get to fix the bugs, etc...
But bad actors are hard working motivated entities with tens of thousand of fake ids, and american citizens working for them, for pennies.
All while the ones like or you sit at a crossfire which is borderline useless.
I cant wait to see what Qwen did with the massive distillation they made out of Opus 4.8 and Fable aka Mythos aka pretty sure they jailbroke it.
What about this: companies stop providing AI tokens to their employees entirely and instead, give a monthly budget for developer tools? They can even go as far as saying "if we realise that you use Chinese AI, you will get a warning and then be fired".
It's not like one can identify code coming from Chinese AI, right? As long as a company doesn't pay for those subscriptions, it may just be the employees writing the code all by themselves :-).
And good luck proving it.
We don't give a fuck about US laws - respectfully, the rest of the planet.
We're already sick of your shit and this will only add to it. Just look at the Iran shit show. What a joke. Ooooooo wooooooo sanctionzzz scary. Sanctions only work if they're enforceable.
Yes, and the rest of the world would just nod worriedly and go along with it, at massive cost to their economies, rather than treating it like the protectionism it is and responding to it with crippling counter-sanctions.
The Anthropic page here seems to say that Max users should have access to the full 1 Million window for 4.8:
https://support.claude.com/en/articles/8606394-how-large-is-...
I was already setting up my infra to experiment with GLM 5.2 and its 1 Million token window before this happened. I think I'm glad I did.
EDIT: Found a solution, seems Claude Code 2.1.193 (or an earlier version I didn't notice) changed default settings, so that if you have Autocompact turned on it occurs at 50% of the context window. If you turn off Autocompact, the full 1 Million context window is restored. Another example of Claude Code quietly changing default settings sigh
My other concern is, it isn't really a 1 Million context window if we can only use the first 500k, right? But now that I've found that I can re-enable it, I'm happy.
I've previously had sessions go to 700k tokens and still be okay, though it does start drifting at that 700k point. I'm regularly at 300k with no problem.
Big boxes with Huawei GPUs and Chinese open models to run inside your company without network access.
- people pay much more for US models than Chinese models because right now they're the best. Once they're no longer the best (since you don't get access to them) why would anyone pay several times as much for the same result?
- once you get a high amount of tokens flowing into China instead of US companies, they will train on those chats and their rate of improvement will only accelerate, making US models even less attractive over time
- the sky-high IPO are dead in the water, since their story of "we will replace a good chunk of all knowledge work in the world, capturing a few % of total global spend relating to it" turns into "we will make a bunch of money out of a few dozen S&P 500 paying for the best, and some pocket money out of whoever uses our overpriced models that are as good as Chinese models" - far less money overall. Losing access to untold billions of investor money certainly won't improve performance for the US labs
- all the non-US people start asking themselves why they're funneling money to US corporations who barely share any of the secret sauce compared to Chinese corporations who share plenty when it comes to LLM, including the models themselves (at least for now)
- Chinese models have significantly less guardrails, making for better end-user experience
- there is a small but non-zero chance Euros get off their asses and invest into AI, making something halfway decent and further fracturing the market which cuts into US profits
So what's the benefit here? I thought the Mythos situation was the current admin taking revenge on Antrophic for not kissing the ring, or simply looking for a bribe, but no matter which way I look at it it's a self-own. The only way this would make any sense is if AGI is imminent, which I don't think even the boosters are arguing at this point.
Theoretically US could outlaw Chinese models, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to accomplish as the rest of the world certainly won't, especially as long as they release open weights models that you can run without phoning home.
Only if you're doing cutting edge research or some highly, highly niche project would you need the frontier models.
I don’t think I can run GLM 5.2 since it requires around 256GB of memory and the inference is probably too slow, but the future (planned) Apple M7 may be able to. The leaks say it will support up to ~700GB of RAM.
The models under 100B are kind of dumb as a brick and aren’t that useful unless you’re really bad at coding imo. They can’t really be trusted not to hallucinate so they’re not even good for data processing.
They coordinated on Signal to bring firearms. They didn't plan to "protest".
They got off lightly. Should have been life without parole.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Prairieland_ICE_detention...
I got blocked almost immediately for drawing a parallel between the west's war on Russia today, waged through Ukraine, and that of the nazi Germany.
I understand one may not like the analogy, to think that it is false or offensive, but no doubt the analogy is there, as well as the analogy between what the "race theory" told about the Slavic people in general, and how Russians are being depicted by the western propaganda today (if they happen to live in Russia or don't have the "right" views).
But not let one speak.. Though as soon you liberate yourself from the hypnosis of "you are living in the free world", this becomes logical.
Afaik there is not a single invader in Russian lands. And nobody was threatening to invade, especially after Napoleon and Hitler demonstrated invading Russia is suicide.
I, who never lived in Russia, saw what was going on since before 2014. The west was progressively amplifying its anti Russian propaganda, using every time another story to present Russians as cheaters, poisoners, and what not.
The fact that to most westerners this was invisible ("this is how they are"), means little.
It came to a point that some people in Kiev thought it was their right to break long term agreements and "convert" people who considered themselves Russians living in Ukraine, to "ukranians", in effect banning the Russian culture and language (claiming always that there was nothing like that). And then openly inviting NATO to Ukraine as "advisors" (which is a very well understood euphemism).
So no, this is after all a replica of Napoleon and Hitler, just with infinitely more sophistication and resources (western drones, AI, and satellites), and letting the ukranians die on the battlefield instead of them.
It’s available to large companies. The WH gives them a competitive advantage against the rest of the market.
... that are friendly to this administration.
What specific externalities are you referring to? The only I can think of is high electricity usage, but consuming energy isn't an externality in itself. It depends entirely on how that electricity is generated and whether its environmental costs are already priced.
The cynic in me suspects they were salivating so much over the Spacex IPO they wanted a finger in anthropics 2026 IPO. Banning fable ~1 day after.
Now OpenAI and Anthropic are big incumbents with Trillion dollar valuations at stake, so they can’t take any risks. Unlike google they don’t really have a thriving primary business to protect though, so without being able to continue to take risks and ignore regulation startup-style, it’s going to be a lot harder for them to stay relevant.
1. https://www.rand.org/global-and-emerging-risks/centers/ai-se...
The administration may try, and the bigger more risk adverse companies will capitulate willingly, but its about as ineffective of a ban as you can get. It'd be like trying to ban running Linux on your home computer because it "might be able be used to conduct cyberattacks"
My buying preferences have definitely shifted to "Buy not American" on digital things. Proton, bunny, hetzner, netcup etc.
Some things are harder to move, but the direction of travel is clear
Why make a product and not sell it baffles me. Especially when others are rapidly making products.
I'm very pro-west, but at this point okay, I guess the rest of us have to side with China, not because we remotely like it, but because they don't try to be quite so antagonistic to us in everything they do.
Just because the many headed dragon is trying to bite your sailors' heads doesn't mean you should pilot your ship into the whirlpool
If the US continues to limit advanced AI to it's own domestic companies, US companies will have a large unfair advantage over foreign competitors who will no longer able to compete.
Wouldn't it then make sense for governments around the world to start banning or tariffing US products and services to protect their industries?
1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48696965
If a country thought the AI export restrictions were inconsistent with treaty the remedy is challenging them, not unilaterally imposing their own tariffs. But even if they got a favorable panel decision the US would speak, and the Appellate Body is non-functional because the US stopped consenting to the addition of new members and all the terms expired. Which means anything that gets appealed is frozen indefinitely waiting for the AB to reach a quorum that won't come until the US changes is mind (and Biden didn't reverse Trump's decision here).
Trump threatens 100% tariff on European nations over tech tax
/s, maybe
(I work at OpenAI.)
I assume for more technical folks this is not needed, as it's just a marketing term. There's no need to use such words because it's obvious, none worked for months to release a worse model/phone/laptop you name it.
The "Plus" and higher tiers are advertised as "The latest models" but if that's not true any more then Open AI is opening themselves to investigations from organisations like: https://www.accc.gov.au/
Promising "X" for $Y to everyone and then delivering "X" only to the "chosen few" at the detriment of others opens you up to lawsuits because then your product advertisement is a lie.
For a comparison, imagine a telco selling "100 Mbps for $20/mo" and then throttling the connection for customers that aren't currently favoured by the Trump administration!
Hey OpenAI model go hack the new mythos for me.
Battle bots, oppression version.
This will tank the market.
See you all on the other side!
"wait, not like that"
Seems it blew in their faces and probably the new frontier models will be available only to a select few. Many people predicted this, only a naive person would believe that access to something with these capabilities would be decided by some dude in California.
GLM 5.2 is competitive with Opus 4.6. If the best model I'll ever get is Opus 4.8, then the choice is clear. I'll miss Opus.
Probably the EU could pool together funds to create something competitive as being on the mercy of someone else isn't a pleasant place to be.
And I wouldn't get so used to the open models. Eventually, if they get good enough, the access to them will also get restricted.
BTW this isn't an opinion on the availability of GPT 5.6. I couldn't care less about that.
It's also more typical of a Reddit or YouTube comment, rather than HN, but that's a separate issue.
Would you levy the same two quote criticism of the reasonable call for regulation?
If non US citizens shouldn't have the models - wouldn't that cause both Anthropic and OAI to fire non-citizens?
They would do what the thousands of other companies do with their tens of thousands of engineers handling ITAR/EAR-regulated software/hardware every day: compartmentalize their workforces, buildings, and access.
Dont worry though, the rest of the entire world gets access to better chinese models :-), once they get a taste for those the US has lost their little trade game and the future truly belongs to China.
Its almost like they are serving it up on a silver platter.
ofc they are not, they are just betting all in their models will be better, which is unlikely. (just look at the chinese law and all the names atop of advanced AI papers...)
If they can’t freely sell access to their models and Chinese models catch up to Opus 4.8/GPT 5.5 in 6-8 months - then why pay OAI/Anthropic at all?
Hypothetically if the US continues to restrict their frontier models and adds a ban on Chinese/open models then it would to obliterate services like open router. American cloud companies would presumably be blocked from selling capacity to run banned models in this situation.
That causes a shortage of compute/gpu resources internationally and an oversupply of non-revenue generating hardware in the US.
If that happens then what percent of your salary is worth securing this compute worth? How much does the cost of a data centre chip change? It’s difficult to say.
I'm very glad to see them say this explicitly and prominently.
Want frontier intelligence? Better not defy the current administration, or your competitors will have access to a better model you could never use.
This amount of courting the current administration is pretty scary imo.
That’s ironic – I interpreted that paragraph with the opposite slant: positively. If that’s what the government mandates then these companies, in the end, have little choice, so was at least relieved to see them publicly pushing back.
They absolutely do have a choice, Anthropic and OpenAI could fight it in court. Iran showed Trump is a coward, he wouldn't risk tanking the only industry still keeping the stock market growing.
They did exactly that with supply chain risk designation, and look what it got them: the administration simply found another more effective way to punish them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/04/podcasts/the-daily/trump-...
Despite their virtue signaling, Anthropic is the only major lab that has never released an open weights model, has been caught intentionally nerfing a model after release (Opus 4.6), intentionally and silently degrades performance for suspected competitors and AI researchers, complains incessantly about distillation when everyone is doing it (and after they settled for pirating books), and wants to pull the ladder out from everyone trying to catch up.
They're anti-consumer and only concerned with holding the power themselves. I'm not a fan of Altman, but Anthropic is the worst actor in the space, and I hope they lose.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48465269
I mean it's fear-mongering until it isn't. I think people have become a bit too comfortable with dismissing the dangers of misaligned AI as simply "marketing hype".
Everyone in the space was talking about the automation of work from about day 2. People couldn’t stop themselves from talking about the way it was going to end work, and tech firms were firing people left right and center over AI.
Notably, Anthropic is the firm that stuck to its guns with the US Government, meaning they likely believe in their own spiel.
If you can't envision plausible scenarios where very bad things happen because of a malevolent actor, ChatGPT 6, and a little bad luck - you need to think harder.
Is it going to change the world? Yes. In more positive ways than negative ways. Websites will continue to get hacked, as they are already getting hacked. People who are afraid of AI are really just afraid of change.
I mean, it seems like common sense - a limited beta test before widespread rollout. I'm not convinced they'll ever come up with a good framework for dealing with the cyber & bio issues, but getting triggered by a beta test rollout seems overboard.
I have zero confidence that this particular administration has any interest in regulating the industry for the good of the country, much less for the good of humanity. They will use regulation to maximize personal profit for themselves and their cronies, at the expense of the nation. I would not have thought that of any other US administration in the past 100 years.
In the longer run, it probably won't matter. If the level of corruption we see currently becomes the norm, then the US is facing much bigger problems than counter-productive industrial policy.
But, the question today is what to do today, a rolling deployment seems pretty hard to argue with.
I'd add, I think it's significant that we haven't seen any administration grandstanding on this specific issue - no Hegseth tweets etc.
Perhaps you can fault them with not coming up with an objective framework earlier, but that's a different criticism.
And given how willy-nilly they are operating I see no reason they won't clamp down on open source. All it takes is someone with connections/political contributions wakes up one day and realizes that open source is a threat to their power or bottom line and it will be declared an imminent threat with no oversight or debate.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/lawmakers-want-ban-vpn...
Europe
https://cybernews.com/privacy/age-gates-vpn-ban-europe-inter...
Any company providing the models will be deemed a threat to national security.
No need to block the download.
> Any company providing the models will be deemed a threat to national security.
Any company providing specifically-controlled models to foreigners would hypothetically be prosecuted.
Why wouldn't they just tell Hugging Face that they need to abide export restrictions directly - they're an American company?
Doesn't sound dystopian enough without a second compelled entity?
> Doesn't sound dystopian enough without a second compelled entity?
This is the second snarky question you've made today, the other in relation to the export limit.
> Is this just upsetting because it's a product you want to enjoy?
Both are assumptions you are making and don't provide much in the way of constructive conversation, if I'm wrong about something it's alright to just point it out.
wondering when more people will raise their voice and get engaged
We won't see mass action until enough people have literally nothing left to lose. For now, folks have plenty to risk and lose by taking action. There is not nearly enough homelessness or starvation yet for people to rise up. The masses are surprisingly tolerant of authoritarian oppression so long as food can keep being put on the table.
It’s only a matter of time before companies start to acknowledge the huge cost of tokens and look for a cheaper alternative with basic cost-benefit analysis.
My F500 company is getting local infrastructure going to host open models and I’m sure many will just switch to bedrock + the best open models.
It’s foolish for companies to let three companies dictate the price of tokens, I just don’t think they are aware of this now by and large.
Or, as a European, thanx for letting Mistral catch-up, I was looking for a reason to use it... A foreign gov deciding what I can use or being able to suddenly pull the plug on my tool makes it easier to choose the lesser quality. (And now I hope my own leaders won't start pulling models :p)
None of them care about states rights, they just want to control things directly.
Otherwise they're putting US frontier labs at a huge disadvantage by preventing them from recouping costs on their biggest models.
How much more will OpenAI and Anthropic models cost when they're the only AI you can legally use?
Is there any concrete information on whether this would be an application process or perhaps for companies that meet certain criteria?
You may have to make similar offerings if you want to use the latest version of ChatGPT.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0O9QhwIkj5w
Bad Federal regulation has a much larger blast radius.
Let’s hope Chinese models save us from this. BYD is trying to save us from Elon but 100% tariffs are welfare keeping Elon afloat.
My biggest quality? I am an American citizen and a trusted partner.
Worst quality? I am on a waitlist for Mythos preview
Yes I’m looking forward to tokenmaxxing together and looking forward for your answer!
Hey now, this is Government we're talking about. There's no markdown, it must be MS Word .docx in Times New Roman, emailed back and forth.
Companies like Microsoft have been asleep at the wheel in terms of security for decades and now there's a model that can identify where they've been careless. That's not a "nuclear bomb level threat" or whatever Anthropic wants to call it, it's reckless carelessness by the existing companies.
China, Russia etc ban Microsoft software from government laptops, indicating there are intentional back doors.
The US intelligence agencies claim it's from Russia, but those agencies always claim it's from Russia. Since 2020 the press just stopped talking about it, with no hint of anything being solved.
Nobody needs intentional back doors.
In retrospect it's obvious that the cyberpunk authors were mistakenly projecting certain parts of their present into the future (relative freedom of the masses and increasing rate of "traditional" engineering), and didn't consider second order effects and political action/reaction.
So which position should the government take? The one it’s doing? Or that LLMs aren’t actually key to national security.
The rise in capability of LLMs over the past year has basically removed a lot of these boundaries for people. Learning, building, and experimenting is a lot easier when you have a capable partner like Claude to help you along the way. Claude doesn't always get everything right, and you have to be a skeptic, but it's a lot better than nothing.
When I see the government restricting access to LLMs (or Anthropic as they were doing with Mythos before the whole Fable debacle), I basically just see the same old pattern of the ruling class moving to protect their advantage by keeping the great masses in ignorance. Broadening access to LLMs (i.e. effective knowledge) would put everyone on a more level playing field. But we can't have that, because politics, nations, the economy, blah blah reasons reasons. Guess utopia will just have to wait a bit longer.
But then again, this feels a lot like cryptography export controls. Those controls are in place, but I doubt anyone really thinks they work or make much of a difference. Software is not like nuclear weapons, and a data center is a much smaller lift than a Uranium enrichment facility. So maybe this is just a temporary roadblock. But let me tell you, I sure am ready for it to feel more like the government is working for (not against) the people.
Eg I expect I would have paid more than 2x per day what I spent the past few weeks, and if gpt 5.6 comes out and is competitive that's going to absolutely gain market share.
An unbelievably costly turn of events for them
Is this going to be like that?
It's commonly applied silently to posts that simply don't look good or become a nightmare to manage the narrative of. It's a healthy way to manage a community while looking transparent.
I think it's sucky and cheap, but at the same time it's also the best solution.
It’s not really the executives job or role to create new regulatory structures. If they want something durable, that lasts more than one administration, they need actual laws passed by Congress.
Whilst this policy is driving countries around the world to develop new AI strategies as USA cannot be relied upon, on the plus side for OpenAI, the publicity of this will help drive customer sales.
> driving countries around the world to develop new AI strategies
Unfortunately Europe is completely incapable of doing anything whatsoever to counter this.
IMO AI is different from everything else. It is a weapon as potent as nuclear. It is only natural that it be treated as one.
Really glad to see some reasonably prominent pushback against this government overreach.
The information has been reporting that the government wants to individually approve which companies get access and when.
Imagine the wonderful opportunities for corruption and influence peddling, not to mention, excluding any companies that don’t support Trump
The idea that OpenAI is the one who are meaningfully pushing back against the USGov is risible.
If they don't get to release, its bad. It paints a picture that we are largely stuck with current capabilities for a while and the party is over. All those promises of "you'll get to fire everyone" now go concretely unfulfilled.
Their entire valuations rely on the assumption of continued massive breakthroughs in intelligence and capabilities, and having revenue on part with taking a share of the GPD provided by white collar workers as they get replaced.
Come on.
I think occam's razor can be applied here. And like everything else, its about money. I don't know exactly what the play will be here, but this doesn't sound like this technology is too powerful and more like billions of $ lost investments need to be made up somehow without the people getting annoyed about the government bailing these guys (AI companies, investors, etc.) out.
- instant, total world war if it's not coming from USA
- let's finish all oil's reserve first otherwise
How do I know? Dario Amodei said that when he explained why Anthropic has to limit the US Government's usage of its models [1]:
If the US Government can't be trusted with such uses, then how can you trust millions or billions of users with arbitrary usage?[1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/statement-department-of-war
They will all get distilled, down trained, and the smaller models will get better too.
The Chinese Communist Party is not any happier than the US Government to see millions/billions of people being able to use incredibly dangerous models.
I have always wondered how AI industry is not in a (partial) bubble because open weight models will substantially eat into their revenue (rather sooner than later). But with this ('bro') regulation it seems that an easy strategy could be to regulate this problem away, especially easy to convince everyone that those chines models are truly evil.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/brief-history-book-bu...
i had one place, they were using all these shady pay with a credit card for "points" to do these web gui things that were... basically nmap, dig, etc?
so i wrote up a small shell script that took in the servers our (often nonprofit) clients wanted scanned...
and so we could lower our costs and free up analyst time -- but sadly they often found out they had out of date windows boxen they couldn't afford to fix, and we'd have to settle for getting them onto MFA, using password managers and basics like that.
people overvalue AI imho. people are getting weak, they don't teach themselves the concepts that would allow them to make best use of AI.
anyways, i think the type of person freaking out is the same who's been cutting and pasting from stack overflow rather than learning enough to grab a book or read up on a library to get the needful done.
but hey, what do i know? i'm just some freak on hacker news
(proudly writing w/o AI :-))
But it is odd that this administration has learned absolutely nothing about the mid- to long-term effects of export restrictions on other countries' ability to compete with the US.
You misspelled “nationalize them” (while we privatize Social Security and probably Medicare)
Only the bad parts of capitalism, only the bad parts of socialism. This is what policy looks like in the 2020s.
* with big pockets
In all seriousness, I can’t believe the AI firms are abiding by this peacefully. If I truly loved my company, and I felt we were on the bleeding edge of incredible, life changing products, why would I allow my company to be set up for failure by remaining somewhere that clearly wants control over the sovereignty.
The US gov sees these AI companies as bartering power, not as innovation. Wouldn’t you as a parent always want what’s best for your child, not for yourself?
It also feels like they can’t just relocate out of the country, as the administration will surely sanction anyone from business within the country again. These firms are so over inflated with evaluations and opex, they’ve dug themselves into a corner.
This is not to say regulation does not exist in any other country, but it’s clear now after what’s happening at Anthropic + OAI that the US gov has taken these companies hostage.
This is only further playing into the hands of open source and the outside models; the US gov is going to be to blame for when they all lose the race to low cost/free.
Which, like the US, uses export controls when it finds them advantageous: https://nam.org/china-imposes-export-controls-on-u-s-mineral...
> In all seriousness, I can’t believe the AI firms are abiding by this peacefully. If I truly loved my company, and I felt we were on the bleeding edge of incredible, life changing products, why would I allow my company to be set up for failure by remaining somewhere that clearly wants control over my sovereignty.
So, locate in China, where every company of importance is essentially required in practice to maintain ties to the CCP?
I personally think the US has gone too far with its use of export controls and sanctions as a political tool, but it's foolish to believe that it's different anywhere else on the planet.
In China, it has even been reported that top AI talent is restricted from overseas travel.
https://www.thinkchina.sg/technology/china-tightens-control-...
Bottom line: if you're working on cutting-edge technology that is deemed to be of critical national security importance and has military or dual use implications, you're going to be a hostage no matter where you go.
AI has long existed in many countries around the world without this type of behavior from the government. Deepmind in the UK, Mistral in France, DeepL in Germany - the governments don’t seem to be forcing employees to get their deploys approved by a government official.
My argument is that the US gov does not like that these companies have too much influence which they do not feel they can mandate. It’s slowing the entire country down at a very critical sink or swim inflection point in this tech.
Then why write "+1 point to China!" and not "+1 point to the UK, France and Germany"?
> Deepmind in the UK, Mistral in France, DeepL in Germany - the governments don’t seem to be forcing employees to get their deploys approved by a government official.
The UK, France and Germany all have their own export controls rules, so if a company in these countries comes up with a model that those governments deem to be of significant enough importance, they also have the means to exercise greater control over them as well.
The latest models from Anthropic and OpenAI are said to be the most advanced in the world. Agree or disagree, like it or not, the powers that be in the US determined that there is sufficient justification to control their export. Under long-standing and perfectly legal export control laws, the US has the ability to issue such orders.
In the case of Anthropic, the company chose to reverse providing public access to Fable because it said it could not comply with the requirement that non-US nationals (even those residing in the US) be restricted from accessing Fable.
> It’s slowing the entire country down at a very critical sink or swim inflection point in this tech.
You might or might not be right, but I think many people would argue that "move fast and break things" is risky when it comes to AI. I can't say that the current administration is genuinely concerned about the broad societal impacts of AI but if the effect of their brand of greater oversight is that companies like Anthropic and OpenAI have to slow down, it might not be a bad thing for humanity.
-the US is the only place where you can raise the kinds of money you need to run a lab like this.
-a government that won’t let you sell products to customers abroad will probably object even more to you moving abroad.
Even if you made the move abroad, that government might no longer let you access US data centers.
-This basically affects OpenAI and Anthropic, which make the only LLMs most people consider frontier nowadays. Since most open weights models rely on distillation of frontier models, it may genuinely entrench those companies more.
It may be playing into the hands of open source OAI/Anthropic dependencies start to look more dangerous, but it also makes building better OSS models harder.
The advantages the AI labs rely on might be less durable than a proprietary process in industrial manufacturing, but it’s still meaningful.
I think the bigger reckoning will come from a different angle: tokens will eventually need to cover cost.
That will likely mean multiplying prices compared to today. And companies already complain now!
Model orchestration and smaller models that can run locally or cheaply will become more important in my opinion.
Right now, you can still default to GPT/Claude and it’s kind of fine, but that will have to change.
Many Americans want AI to fail. The US gov wants to control AI. The AI companies are running out of things to do, and are shipping product after product after product to keep the perceived productivity narrative alive.
At this rate I would not be surprised to see an OAI/Anthropic merger just to throw everything AI the US has to offer to the global markets.
We’re still in the “5$ airport Ubers thanks to VC money” era of AI
They literally asked for this.
What are they going to do about it? Might makes right.
They've already done what little they can: pull access to their models wholesale rather than adopt an export compliance regime.
USA RIP.
Arent these the same clowns who keep saying that the government needs to regulate AI to protect society [from their competitors] or whatever? And im not just talking about back when they used to be a nonprofit, Altman was still using that line post-sellout too.
Starting to sound logical right about now ...
It's not about the tech. We have a corrupt administration gatekeeping two powerful models for companies set to go public soon.
I bet the models are powerful.
I also bet there is a lot of money being exchanged, too, for keeping the bubble big, so certain people will profit.
Trump doesn't care about the people. He cares about himself.
https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/47857230937/luigi-zi...
Approval lists for AI models.
Two sides of the same coin. The administration is taking the opportunity now on the back of fear mongering done by the labs. The labs get regulatory lock-in, the govt gets surveillance. Everybody (that matters) wins.
I understand if its military hardware and software, that's the property of the US government however this is the property of a private company.. Now seemingly being commandeered and issued at the will of the government, sounds very Russian/Chinese to me.
Is there a precedent for this before in a democratic country ?
The missiles Raytheon makes are export-controlled too, and they're not somehow "property of the US government" - this isn't China.
Is this just upsetting because it's a product you want to enjoy?
> Is there a precedent for this before in a democratic country ?
Try every weapons system, encrypted radio system, FPGAs with high-bandwidth transceivers, lithography equipment, etc. etc. etc. There's plenty of precedent.
No, infact I'm a proponent of open models and being able to run them locally, it just feels strange that a consumer product would be under the same restrictions as military grade equipment and tech which is specifically designed for warfare.
> Try every weapons system, encrypted radio system, FPGAs with high-bandwidth transceivers, lithography equipment, etc. etc. etc. There's plenty of precedent.
If it's the same equivalent then my issue is just that, it feels like trying to restrict the useage of RSA because it could be used by bad actors.
RSA was practically impossible to control (an implementation is what, 100 lines in any language?) and the global benefits outweighed the cost and futility associated with restrictions.
AI laboratories with hundreds of billions of dollars in funding aren't cropping up in every country in the world, and their products and services are easily controlled and not easily replicated.
> Is there a precedent for this before in a democratic country ?
I'd argue US is not very democratic country given how many of what govt does goes against people's wishes. Same as UK
That could be argued but the core principle is freedom of commerce and private companies get a lot of runway. This seems completely counter to tha.
Being told "no" is never fun, but the regulations are not hard to comply with (despite what Anthropic might have you believe.)
> I can't imagine US partners will abide this for long.
What are they going to do? Start their own Anthropic? Go for it. Why is every other country in the world entitled to American technology by default?
My company is very interested in local LLMs even just to cut back on codex spend. I imagine a lot of other businesses are, too. With the recent developments in open weight models, it seems like it's only a matter of time before they're frontier level, and any added delay in OpenAI and Anthropic models being publicly available is just more reason for businesses and individuals to try them out.
Just like the Iran war accelerating fossil fuel abandonment, this administration can't even do the wrong thing without fucking it up. I say we take this win.
I am asking because I have seen a growing number of stories about organizations getting owned by either raw mismanagement of security, supply chain attacks that are often a failure at the ecosystem level, npm, etc.
I am not really seeing from what we hear about the use of AI for penetration as a threat yet. The growing problem with security seems to be more at the management and ecosystem layers.
Not many story that netfilter, ipfw or pf got owned by one of those frontier models.
A lot of stories that organisation X and Y left keys on a public repo for months.
Who is deciding who gets to use GPT-5.6? Which organizations? Which leaders?
Focus on that to have a clearer conversation. Without doing this it's like jerking each other off to stroke our egos. You might as well as say "The World will decide who gets to use GPT-5.6"
Trump and his cronies.
Nobody else in the US Gov is so openly corrupt and has the unitary executive power to ban the products of privately held companies for sale without there being a public record (i.e.: an act of congress).
And what are you going to do about it?
Not my problem!
Over here we depose of our leaders when their corruption comes to light.
Or are we going to play the whole "you guys suck... but I'll keep using your product" game?
This is rich social classes claiming more for themselves.
Someone convince me otherwise?
They are playing status games, and making particular products available to specific people.
Whatever the majority of people get will be a modified, probably weakened, version of what those at higher social classes get.
> with no possibility of recovering their capital except by concession of the people's representative
This is definitely not true and its not that binary.
Thank you Chinese Robin Hoods
I hope the country doesn’t become the new USSR.
It's a matter of time before the Chinese models are banned.
OpenAI Leans Toward Waiting Until Next Year for IPO
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48678873
DeepSeek 4 is a good model for many tasks, but I think it currently lacks the post-training required to become a genuinely great coding model.
We are very clearly proceeding down the road to a dystopia here.
We obviously can't A/B test this... but if Dario hadn't been doing that, would any of this been happening right now?
No it doesn't.
> When you run around marketing something as a "super weapon"
That's one interpretation of what was said that ignores a lot of what was said.
So yes, if you ONLY read the headlines, sure. So, an ignorant and stupid government would read it that way. But the reality was, like many things, more nuanced.
However, I need not blame the messenger because the current government is led by idiotic morons.
Let's put this another way: either this is valid on behalf of the government, in which case he was right ot say something. Or you disagree with this, in which case, you can only blame the government for ignornig what was actually said.
These models aren't even that smart and they are already trying to control them and lock them down to a handful of people.
Then these executive and VC wonder why people hate AI and are against them.
Because the future is heading toward intelligence for the rich and you stuck with whatever model they want you to have.
The next step is banning open source models.
The future is not looking so bright if these models are already going locked down to whoever the government what's to have them.
This is no different than the government banning books because they don't want you to learn.
The way I see so many comments on the internet hating any sort of AI regulation, is young juveniles cursing at the installation of stoplights as they rev their engines. The world is bigger than just you, and not only you matter. Reasons exist for doing things.
That just doesn't seem like a world I want to live in. I prefer a world where everyone has the same access to the same intelligence.
Go back to the beginning of the internet, you would be for limiting the internet access to those the government likes?
I was around in the early days of the internet when Google dorking was a thing, you could prompt Google and find exploits into hundreds and thousands of websites, servers, ect including government website.
This isn't about national security, it about power and controlling it.
Even the old internet, I'm kind of with you on that being something the market should naturally respond to which is why Google rightfully nerfed its search tools over the years, software changed and network infrastructure evolved.
This is different. The government already silently manages many things you never hear about and limits information reporting. Reasonable people generally go "ah, ok" for things that are beyond a threshold, because it seems like a sensible role for governance.
I think everyone agrees government should not simply be curating AI models that only spew public information or say something inconvenient about a political party or whatever. I also don't think people want AI models that are constantly trying to guess whether you're a child and should have certain information. That's not largely the issue.
You can list me the threats that you think AI poses, and I'll let you know if you're warm or not.
I’m quite confident that few people are more ignorant on AI than Donald Trump. That he promised less regulation and lied is no different than his many other lies.
In six months everyone will cancel frontier subscriptions.
GLM on LLM Asics is going to be amazing, US hosted or otherwise
Censorship. Surveillance. (Hi, PLTR!)
But if the government can simply ban models from the market? especially given how much the admin loves the idea of Tariffs? Knowing Trump the chance of this happening is 99.9%
We will all be stuck paying $50/mtok to Anthropic (And by we I mean only Big Tech will be able to afford tokens). The rest of the competition will be outcompeted by super intelligent machines. And AI CO’s /Big Tech will take over the economy.
i see opensource model is big win for me.
The first obvious conclusion is that China has been utterly vindicated to keep US tech giants out of China. Some have a token presence but it's clear that the Chinese government will never let a US tech government "win" in any domestic market. It will always be a Chinese company. Obligatory Silicon Valley [1].
The second is that, to that end, IMHO the US government made an error blocking the sale of high-end chips (particularly NVidia) to China. Why? Because it's created a captive market for Chinese chip manufacturing. Huawei now has billions in potential sales that might've otherwise gone to chips produced in Taiwan and South Korea.
Third, the US can somehow ban a Dutch company (ASML) from selling EUV to China. This has forced China to replicate it and they will within a few years. The interesting part of this is that all it really takes is throwing money at a few key researchers and engineers who worked for ASML. It really is using the mechanics of the Western economic system against itself.
Last, the US government will try and make US tech giants "own" or "win" AI. And they will fail because the Chinese government will make sure they fail. How? By releasing ever-better open models for free. I believe China considers this a matter of national security to not be beholden to US tech giants (and thus the US government).
The ironic thing to me is that the US is doing what the West accuses China of doing with corporate control. I'd say the actual difference is that Chinese companies are beholden to the state whereas the US government is basically 5 companies in a trenchcoat. The US wants to mint trillionaires at the expense of literally everybody else. China believes society should benefit from something they collectively make possible.
Anyway, we've been here before. Remember the crypto export ban of the 1990s and 2000s? Did that prevent higher-quality encryption from being used overseas? No. This won't help either.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km5XQxRrQvw
What disturbs me is that this was not extremely obvious and predictable to everyone else. I have been called schizophrenic for my views on AI, here, and I kind of see how some could miss my points, but I am genuinely perplexed by the views on the subject I see around here, or specifically the views I don't see here.
Did anyone really not see this coming long ago? I have year-old transcripts discussing exactly what's happening with AI and government intervention. I even have a time-stamped transcript with Sonnet 12 hours prior, soft-predicting the shutdown of Fable. What is not clear about this?
[dupe] Earlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48678789
Hopefully open-weight models will catch up, hopefully we, as the people, engineers will find the way to maintain those open-weight models on pair with the closed ones.
I try to be optimistic, as we won some battles, against all odds, Linux is flourishing, open source solutions are mainstream.
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-sel...
A consortium will train a 400B-class model and get 2.5% on time of the EuroHPC infrastructure (~2000 PFLOPS datacenters). So, even if the Chinese take away the open source there will be some models. Probably not Mythos quality yet though.
My brother in Christ, then why did you (and your competitors) spend years telling the government you needed them to tie your hands behind your back? Did you really think they'd just give you a crown that says "Gatekeeper Of All Neural Networks"?
The way you know this is true is to imagine The Others in power. Sacks used to scream about government interference, but now that he's running (this part of) the government, obviously things are different.
The only constant is that David Sacks (& co) always believed he should have all the power.
Don't get me wrong: I'm all for open models, but I think it will get more and more difficult to distil-train them without (legitimate) access to frontier models.
If anything I bet these people will just use their knowledge to make even more money reselling tokens.
The set of models solving really most used/solved problems is a known, as opposed to the cases where it's unknown, which declines with usage over time.
People have no idea and everybody pretends to be an expert and ignore how good China is on AI research
If you want an Opus class model, it makes sense that you would train on what Opus outputs. But, if you want something better than Opus, training on the same data that Opus was trained on with the same architecture will only result in an Opus class model. Then, if your dataset also contains Opus outputs, many of which are wrong, then it makes sense that the model would have reduced performance.
All this to say that I don't think there's such a thing as a "Model Collapse," but there likely is a "Model Stagnation."