Comment by echelon

Comment by echelon 2 days ago

89 replies

I don't care if this kills Google and OpenAI.

I hope it does, though I'm doubtful because distribution is important. You can't beat "ChatGPT" as a brand in laypeople's minds (unless perhaps you give them a massive "Temu: Shop Like A Billionaire" commercial campaign).

Closed source AI is almost by design morphing into an industrial, infrastructure-heavy rocket science that commoners can't keep up with. The companies pushing it are building an industry we can't participate or share in. They're cordoning off areas of tech and staking ground for themselves. It's placing a steep fence around tech.

I hope every such closed source AI effort is met with equivalent open source and that the investments made into closed AI go to zero.

The most likely outcome is that Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic win and every other "lab"-shaped company dies an expensive death. RunwayML spent hundreds of millions and they're barely noticeable now.

These open source models hasten the deaths of the second tier also-ran companies. As much as I hope for dents in the big three, I'm doubtful.

raw_anon_1111 2 days ago

I can’t think of a single company I’ve worked with as a consultant that I could convince to use DeepSeek because of its ties with China even if I explained that it was hosted on AWS and none of the information would go to China.

Even when the technical people understood that, it would be too much of a political quagmire within their company when it became known to the higher ups. It just isn’t worth the political capital.

They would feel the same way about using xAI or maybe even Facebook models.

  • JSR_FDED 2 days ago
    • raw_anon_1111 a day ago

      TIL: That Chinese models are considered better at multiple languages than non Chinese models.

    • tayo42 a day ago

      It's a customer service bot? And Airbnb is a vacation home booking site. It's pretty inconsequential

      • antonvs a day ago

        Airbnb has ~$12 bn annual revenue, and is a counterexample to the idea that no companies can be "convinced to use DeepSeek".

        The fact that it's customer service means it's dealing with text entered by customers, which has privacy and other consequences.

        So no, it's not "pretty inconsequential". Many more companies fit a profile like that than whatever arbitrary criteria you might have in mind for "consequential".

  • StealthyStart 2 days ago

    This is the real cause. At the enterprise level, trust outweighs cost. My company hires agencies and consultants who provide the same advice as our internal team; this is not to imply that our internal team is incorrect; rather, there is credibility that if something goes wrong, the decision consequences can be shifted, and there is a reason why companies continue to hire the same four consulting firms. It's trust, whether it's real or perceived.

    • raw_anon_1111 2 days ago

      I have seen it much more nuanced than that.

      2020 - I was a mid level (L5) cloud consultant at AWS with only two years of total AWS experience and that was only at a small startup before then. Yet every customer took my (what in hindsight might not have been the best) advice all of the time without questioning it as long as it met their business goals. Just because I had @amazon.com as my email address.

      Late 2023 - I was the subject matter expert in a niche of a niche in AWS that the customer focused on and it was still almost impossible to get someone to listen to a consultant from a shitty third rate consulting company.

      2025 - I left the shitty consulting company last year after only a year and now work for one with a much better reputation and I have a better title “staff consultant”. I also play the game and be sure to mention that I’m former “AWS ProServe” when I’m doing introductions. Now people listen to me again.

    • 0xWTF 2 days ago

      Children do the same thing intuitively: parents continually complain that their children don't listen to them. But as soon as someone else tells them to "cover their nose", "chew with their mouth closed", "don't run with scissors", whatever, they listen and integrate that guidance into their behavior. What's harder to observe is all the external guidance they get that they don't integrate until their parents tell them. It's internal vs external validation.

      • raw_anon_1111 2 days ago

        Or in many cases they go over to their grandparents house and they let them run wild and all of the sudden your parents have “McDonald’s money” for their grandkids when they never had it for you.

        • [removed] a day ago
          [deleted]
    • coliveira 2 days ago

      So much worse for American companies. This only means that they will be uncompetitive with similar companies that use models with realistic costs.

      • raw_anon_1111 2 days ago

        I can’t think of a single major US company that is big internationally that is competing on price.

  • tokioyoyo 2 days ago

    If the Chinese model becomes better than competitors, these worries will suddenly disappear. Also, there are plenty startups and enterprises that are running fine-tuned versions of different OS models.

    • raw_anon_1111 2 days ago

      Yeah that’s not how Big Enterprise works…

      And most startups are just doing prompt engineering that will never go anywhere. The big companies will just throw a couple of developers at the feature and add it to their existing business.

      • tokioyoyo 2 days ago

        Big enterprise with mostly private companies as their clients? Lol, yeah, that’s how they work from my personal experience. The reality is, if it’s not a tech-first enterprise and already outsource part of tech to a shop outside of NA (which is almost majority at this point), they will do absolutely everything to cut the costs.

    • hhh 2 days ago

      No… Nobody I work for will touch these models. The fear is real that they have been poisoned or have some underlying bomb. Plus y’know, they’re produced by China, so they would never make it past a review board in most mega enterprises IME.

      • tokioyoyo 2 days ago

        People say that, but everyone, including enterprises, are constantly buying Chinese tech one way or another because of cost/quality ratio. There’s a tipping point in any excel file where risks don’t make sense, if the cost is 20x for the same quality.

        Of course you’ll always have exceptions (government, military and etc.), but for private, winner will take it all.

      • vitaflo a day ago

        I work at a F50 company and Deepseek is one of the model that has been approved for use. Took them a bit to get it all in place but it's certainly being used in Megacorps.

      • deaux 2 days ago

        For what it's worth, this is complete insanity when practically every mega enterprises' hardware is largely Made in China.

      • cherioo 2 days ago

        That conversation probably gets easier if and when company when $100+M on AI.

        Companies just need to get to the “if” part first. That or they wash their hand by using a reseller that can use whatever it wants under the hood.

    • subroutine 2 days ago

      As a government contractor, using a Chinese model is a non-starter.

      • jazzyjackson 2 days ago

        I don't know that it's actually prohibited. There is no Chinese telecommunications equipment allowed, no Huawei or Bytedance, but nothing prohibiting software merely being developed in China, not yet at least.

        Although I did just check what regions AWS bedrock support Deepseek and their govcloud regions do not, so that's a good reason not to use it. Still, on prem on a segmented network, following CMMC, probably permissable

  • deaux 2 days ago

    > Even when the technical people understood that

    I'm not sure if technical people who don't understand this deserve the moniker technical in this context.

  • nylonstrung a day ago

    The average person has been programmed to be distrustful of open source in general, thinking it is inferior quality or in service of some ulterior motive

  • register 2 days ago

    That might be the perspective of a US based company. But there is also Europe and basically it's a choice between Trump and China.

    • Muromec 2 days ago

      Europe has Mistral. It feels that governments that can do things without fax take this as a sovereignity thing and roll their own or have their provider in their jurisdiction.

  • tehjoker 2 days ago

    really a testament to how easily the us govt has spun a china bad narrative even though it is mostly fiction and american exceptionalism

    • beowulf0x0 2 days ago

      [flagged]

      • jazzyjackson 2 days ago

        Try not to accuse community members of being spies, sheesh.

        American companies chose to manufacturer in China and got all surprised Pikachu when China manufactured copies for themselves.

      • tehjoker 2 days ago

        This is how crazy and nationalistic people are getting. I'm an American citizen, though I am critical of the US government, and have no allegiances to China. What do you think America is doing to every country, even allies (which has been highly publicized)? Why would a country being constantly attacked by American intelligence and propaganda not want to counter that?

        https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-security-agency-spie...

        American intelligence has penetrated most information systems and at least as of 10 years ago, was leading all other nations in the level of sophistication and capability. Read Edward Snowden.

  • littlestymaar 2 days ago

    > I can’t think of a single company I’ve worked with as a consultant that I could convince to use DeepSeek because of its ties with China even if I explained that it was hosted on AWS and none of the information would go to China.

    Well for non-American companies, you have the choice between Chinese models that don't send data home, and American ones that do, with both countries being more or less equally threatening.

    I think if Mistral can just stay close enough to the race it will win many customers by not doing anything.

  • siliconc0w 2 days ago

    [flagged]

    • deaux 2 days ago

      > For example, a small random percentage of the time, it could add a subtle security vulnerability to any code generation.

      Now on the HN frontpage: "Google Antigravity just wiped my hard drive"

      Sure going to be hard to distinguish these Chinese models' "intentionally malicious actions"!

      And the cherry on top:

      - Written from my iPhone 16 Pro Max (Made in China)

      • raw_anon_1111 a day ago

        Where does the software come from? Your iPhone can’t magically intercept communications and send it to China without the embedded software. If Apple can’t verify the integrity of its operating system before it is installed on iPhones. There are some huge issues.

        Even if China did manage to embed software on the iPhone in Taiwan, it would soon hopefully be wiped since you usually end up updating the OS anyway as soon as you activate it.

    • nagaiaida 2 days ago

      on what hypothetical grounds would you be more meaningfully able to sue the american maker of a self-hosted statistical language model that you select your own runtime sampling parameters for after random subtle security vulnerabilities came out the other side when you asked it for very secure code?

      put another way, how do you propose to tell this subtle nefarious chinese sabotage you baselessly imply to be commonplace from the very real limitations of this technology in the first place?

      • fragmede 2 days ago

        This paper may be of interest to you: https://arxiv.org/html/2504.15867v1

        • nagaiaida 2 days ago

          the mechanism of action for that attack appears to be reading from poisoned snippets on stackoverflow or a similar site, which to my mind is an excellent example of why it seems like it would be difficult to retroactively pin "insecure code came out of my model" on the evil communist base weights of the model in question

    • nylonstrung a day ago

      Literally every time a Chinese model is discussed here we get this completely braindead take

      There has never been a shred of evidence for security researchers, model analysis, benchmarks, etc that supports this.

      It's a complete delusion in every sense.