The gap between open weights LLMs and closed source LLMs

And there will always be incentivised parties that release models. Nvda for one has every incentive to keep the nemotron line going, as they're directly profiting from people running this. And the models aren't really far from open SotA anyway.

Goog will probably continue to release the small models, since they'll use them for browser stuff anyway, and know that they'll leak. So for them it's a win-win to release the small models and gain some dev market share.

And the chinese labs also have incentives to keep releasing models, and will likely continue to get gov support to do so (yay commercial wars between nations).

Plus I am certain it makes financial sense. I am guessing here but fully utilizing a subscriptions limits probably costs the operator more money than the subscription revenue, that is why anthropic is making such a big stink about the chinese data harvesting. By releasing the weights, you are relieving yourself from that burden because the competition does not need to hammer your subscription service they can just download your model and analyze it and run it all day.

Also for the largest models it makes no sense to run it yourself unless you are a major player. Renting the hardware is ludicrously more expensive than their subscription tens of thousands of dollars. And buying the hardware to run them is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Or until some bright people figure out drastically more efficient means of training.

True. And it's possible that this has already happened at Alibaba Qwen - at least for the smaller models that people had a chance of running at home (122B and smaller).

But consider the alternative. OpenAI and Anthropic can shut off your account or API key at any time for any reason. How is this better? You have way more security when you're running your own model.

You don't know what's happening in z.ai nor alibaba. And you don't know what's happening in anthropic and open ai.

I don't know what they are all doing, but I find it extremely unlikely that they are not all collecting data from one another. I am confident anthropic has a team going over GML 5.2 weights even if it's just to see where the competition is.

Just because some labs are getting data from Anthropic does not mean they are not also doing their own research.

They were focused on optimization because they could not get the best hardware.The only reason their top labs are behind may be because they did not have h200s and MI350s. And now they do.

Plus you are discounting other risks, Anthropic is currently sitting on "the best" models in the world because they got in a pissing match with the US administration.

btw: This could be the case in china as well, their administration has been surprisingly open on AI exports and open weight models, that we know of. There is a very small but not trivial chance they are hogging a better version of glm 5.2 for example, but no one is allowed to talk about it. Now I am not saying that is the case, I am saying the two cases (chinese labs are 6 months behind, they are forced to suppress their best models) are indistinguishable.

Even if your characterization is accurate, they could do this tomorrow and are not so myopic that they wouldn’t have thought about it. I don’t see this as a barrier, and I see a lot of the same underestimation of Asia that’s been happening for 50 years. There’s not some innate American advantage to building LLMs, and personally I think whatever head start the US has is going to be squandered on delays from the export control “to dangerous for release” LARPing we’re seeing.

Distilling even with small amounts of data from a better model is still helpful, but not in the sense of transferring capabilities the raw internet-trained model doesn't have at all, but for identifying those capabilities that are compatible with the servile assistant persona and suppressing others that are undesirable (e.g. trolling). A primitive version of this were instruction-tuning datasets generated with ChatGPT, as used e.g. for Alpaca.

Without a clear target to emulate, competitors might have to rely more on human raters, but there are plenty of data labeling companies in China, so that's hardly a hurdle.

1. It's unclear if there is a law of diminishing returns with ever-larger models. They're more expensive to run and for many applications, you'll probably find smaller models are sufficient;

2. There's an inbuilt market for local LLMs. This is an effective limit on how large models can get. Case law hasn't been established yet on, for example, if a law firm using ChatGPT breaks privilege. Specifically, chat logs may be discoverable. Medical applications have this issue too and I think you'll find that financial firms are going to be leery about this as well;

3. Better, larger models will bleed into smaller, open source models. The chat logs themselves are training data. There's a whole market in China for Claude tokens around this;

4. China has a national security interest in not being beholden to US tech giants when it comes to AI. China has a history of being able to commit to large-scale long-term projects and Anthropic just won't be able to compete with a national project by one of the world's superpowers, if it comes down to it;

5. Winning doesn't necessarily mean being the best. Often it's just being good enough;

6. As an example of a national project, China is busy replicating EUV because of the US ban on ASML and NVidia exporting their best stuff. I don't think many in the West are prepared for how rapid this will be. I'm reminded of the policy debate in 1945 when many in American policy and militarey circles thought the USSR would never catch up with atomic bomb or, if they did, it would take 20+ years. It took 4 years. For the hydrogen bomb, it took 1. The US hardware advantage is a lot more tenuous than many realize.

Some people in China surely know.

> Like if the closed models stop improving will all the closed models also stop improving?

Seems extremely unlikely, unless the models all hit some kind of wall soon. The Chinese companies may be behind the US in compute capacity, but they have excellent researchers [0] who are probably approximately as good as their US counterparts at the kind of problem generation and RL that is currently working so well.

I would be very surprised, though, if the models cannot continue to be improved rapidly in any area that allows a tight feedback loop like programming, at least up to the point where we puny humans lose the ability to define objective functions.

(And, conversely, I don’t expect magic in fields where the feedback is slow or expensive. A model is not about to reliably invent a wonderful medicine for the same reason that a large and extremely competent pharma company cannot: the evaluation process is extremely slow and it’s so expensive that the kind of utterly enormous corpus that is driving the current progress in coding is simply not available. Running RL on m iterations of n medication-development trajectories each is going to cost n*m times $10-100 million and take m years if it’s even possible at all.)

[0] The US advantage in this space will likely decline, since the brain drain from the rest of the world via the US university system to US labs is drying up.

I gave up. No one cares. And no one will ever tell the truth about the training anyways.

Substantial and growing freedom beats zero freedom ever again.