18
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

They are:

The Next Generation AI Development Plan, launched in 2017, sets ambitious goals, aiming to position AI as a core driver of economic transformation by 2025 and establish the country as a global hub for AI innovation by 2030.

They have a coordinated strategy that includes AI, robotics etc for quite some time now. And the government (CCP) invests lots of money and coordinates research and funding.

I'm not sure if their specific goal is to weaken anyone else. They just strive to lead and dominate key technology...

[-] Lugh@futurology.today 3 points 3 weeks ago

They are:

I could easily believe its true, though if so, I'm puzzled by their tactics.

Open-sourcing like this seems profoundly decentralizing and democratizing, not tendencies I'd associate with the CCP.

[-] Cochise@lemmy.eco.br 7 points 3 weeks ago

The models are open source meaning you can download them and run them. But the training data and code to train the model is not. So, they stills control the model, as there is no way to replicate it.

[-] rockerface@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago

So if you can't replicate it, it by definition isn't open source, is it?

[-] Cochise@lemmy.eco.br 4 points 3 weeks ago

The model is, in the sense you can modify it. Further train it, integrate in your app, etc. But the recipe to make the model is not.

And yes, it's less open source than we can think at first sight.

[-] rockerface@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago

Isn't every software binary open source then? Since you can open it in a hex editor and modify it

[-] Cochise@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 3 weeks ago

But tou don't have permission to do. And hacking a binary is much more difficult than specializing a model, for instance.

[-] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yeah, that's kind of AI companies' definition of open source... Other companies just have "open" in their name for historical reasons. The FSF doesn't really agree ( https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-is-working-on-freedom-in-machine-learning-applications ) and neither do I. It's "open weight". Or I'd need to see the datasets and training scripts as well.

[-] rockerface@lemm.ee 4 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, "open weight" seems a more appropriate label. It still seems better than a fully proprietary system, but calling it open source without clarification is misleading.

this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
18 points (100.0% liked)

Futurology

2103 readers
72 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS