yorwba 14 hours ago

The CCP controlling the government doesn't mean they micromanage everything. Some Chinese AI companies release the weights of even their best models (DeepSeek, Moonshot AI), others release weights for small models, but not the largest ones (Alibaba, Baidu), some keep almost everything closed (Bytedance and iFlytek, I think).

There is no CCP master plan for open models, any more than there is a Western master plan for ignoring Chinese models only available as an API.

Reply View 8 replies
  • baq 14 hours ago

    Never suggested anything of the sort, involvement doesn’t mean direct control, it might be a passive ‘let us know if there’s progress’ issued privately, it might also be a passive ‘we want to be #1 in AI in 2030’ announced publicly, neither requires any micromanagement whatsoever: CCP’s expectation is companies figuring out how to align to party directives themselves… or face consequences.

    Reply View 5 replies
    • shroobani 10 hours ago

      Unlike the US, where there are no consequences for not aligning with the ruling party's directives.

      Reply View 2 replies
    • antonvs 3 hours ago

      In other words, your original comment was pointless speculation with no real basis.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • baq 2 hours ago

        you're welcome to educate yourself if you don't trust anons on the internet.

        Reply View 0 replies
  • jimbo808 9 hours ago

    They don't have to micromanage companies. A company's activities must align with the goals of the CCP, or it will not continue to exist. This produces companies that will micromanage themselves in accordance with the CCP's strategic vision.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • antonvs 2 hours ago

      That seems irrelevant in this case, given that China has companies all over the spectrum in terms of the degree of openness of their AI products.

      Reply View 0 replies