d5lt5 · HackerLangs

kemarin duludiscuss

3 entries in the list above did exactly that more than a decade ago. My point is that the US tech is not in a process, they were at the frontier long before everyone else.

d5lt5

3 hari yang laludiscuss

It's interesting how you think of US tech currently being in a process of becoming a tool of state surveillance and oppression that Russia and China have, while the following exists:

* PRISM (est. 2007) spied on US citizens with the help from AT&T, Microsoft, Google, Apple, and etc.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM

* SpyFiles (various years, ~2011) US/EU surveillance software: https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/

* Facebook (est. 2004):

  - Helped Cambridge Analytica (~2013) to interfere with the elections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal

  - Bought Onavo (~2013) to spy on competition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onavo

  - Manufactured consent to enable genocides in Ethiopia, Myanmar, and Gaza.

* Palantir (est. 2003): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir

* Microsoft GSP (~2003) to enable US government to find zero-days (now with Mythos): https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/securityengineering/gsp

d5lt5

4 hari yang laludiscuss

The culture of bribes is a bit different in China. 'Mutually assured corruption' describes the situation better.

d5lt5

4 hari yang laludiscuss

Have you heard of a website called facebook?

d5lt5

14 hari yang laludiscuss

> Even tightly regulated industries with security concerns can use the latest deepseek.

That is not necessarily true, as "tightly regulated industries with security concerns" are also afraid of deepseek models generating vulnerable code. Even a possibility of that prevents those industries from deployments.

> That doesn't benefit china directly but it does serve to further undermine the lead that the american frontier labs have which limits their future ability to cut geopolitical adversaries off.

So, basically, competition is bad for US models? That argument doesn't address open-weights. And it doesn't work the other way around, because in that case China should be releasing close-weights instead.

d5lt5

14 hari yang laludiscuss

> Yes. That’s why development and debt are hard problems. Also why calling it “goodwill” is, at best, too generous.

One can call the intent 'goodwill'. It doesn't mean that the outcome is satisfactory for your economic expectations. Judging from exceptions is not a valid approach and is a weird take.

> “The US also does very bad stuff” doesn’t make BRI goodwill.

True. I used that as an example of an alternative approach. The reader can decide which one is more 'goodwill'.

> Some even try viable (if self-interested) development policy without bombing people.

What countries are you referring to here: France (Douala and Abidjan ports, North–South railway in Vietnam), Japan (also ports in Sri Lanka, Thilawa), something else?

> Don’t make me say what I did not.

That conclusion says more about your reading than about what I actually wrote.

> Basically, that unlike your "goodwill" claim, China isn’t just giving away infrastructure for free out of the goodness of its government’s heart.

I shoot back with "Don’t make me say what I did not.", and 'goodwill' doesn't mean 'free stuff', you may want to check the dictionary ;)

d5lt5

14 hari yang laludiscuss

It's a long stretch in mental gymnastics with no factual proofs.

d5lt5

14 hari yang laludiscuss

Can you argue that the principle of the BRI is humanitarian and it should benefit both partners, but not equally? Imho, that policy is far better for humanity than blockading Cuba, bombing Venezuela and Iran.

> A lot of it was financed through large (sometimes unsustainable) loans to recipient countries, sometimes leading to unsustainable debt burdens, irrespective of the potential ROI for the recipient (ie Sri Lanka’s port).

I see that you blame China for Sri Lanka, while China wasn't the only creditor there.

> And the infrastructure didn’t necessarily line up with the recipient’s actual needs

Easy to say in hindsight.

d5lt5

14 hari yang laludiscuss

How would open-weight models benefit PRC better than their own closed-weight models, but still available at lower prices? If anything, open-weights can be distilled far easier.

d5lt5

14 hari yang laludiscuss

Well, you are wrong. Maybe you should visit and learn more about China to understand it. For starters, China's society is high-individualistic with a strong sense of community and with high respect to their elders. On the contrary, US's society is hyper-individualistic with a strong sense of family and basic respect to their elders.

d5lt5

14 hari yang laludiscuss

I think you view this situation from the US point of view and assume that China has the same guiding principles and values in their foreign policy, for which it doesn't. They might do what you said, of course. But they very well might also treat LLMs as another goodwill investment like the Belt and Road Initiative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_and_Road_Initiative) and export the capability to partner countries, for example, in Africa, to strengthen relationships.

d5lt5

21 hari yang laludiscuss

Ehm. I would assume your definition of writing good code fast is not what the majority of enterprise developers agrees with.

d5lt5

22 hari yang laludiscuss

USA is a melting pot and is not viewed as a monocultural country.

d5lt5

22 hari yang laludiscuss

"which they destroyed with there ideology and hate in there own country" Arguably the ideology and hate are prerequisites for a country to have a monoculture. With ideology and hate comes xenophobia and racism == monoculture.

d5lt5

2 bulan yang laludiscuss

I did and helped d33ps33k. You are welcome!

comments