Reporting/news around AI is so very interesting these days.
It's really hard to tell what's propaganda from what's not.
For examples, this Reuters that you have included here has all tells tale signs of creating fear, uncertainty, and feeding into propaganda. But then again I can't be sure.
What's very interesting to me is these moves will introduce a good amount of doubt in future claims by Claude etc, that the open source and non-US models are only getting better because they're distilling from frontier labs.
Not a great move imo from a business stand point, given the heightened supply chain risk that global (non-US) corporations and sovereigns are already associating with the frontier labs.
I like that it's going to drive more momentum towards the open source/weight models. I was hoping that it would be a slower burn though.
The loss of trust in using US based model's is unlikely to come back though.
Anthropic with it's hyped doomsday messaging, and the administration falling for it (at best), has eroded a lot of trust and has triggered an arms race of sorts.
Edit: I'm a fan of deepseek and believe it's good to make the technology open/available. And do think that also help business - which I support as well.
ShadCN is the most popular design system that AI automatically reaches for 90%+ times on its own. It's also the default most platforms like lovable, etc.
What jumps out at me is a lot of this is still very task oriented. And each to their own, but anecdotally, I haven't seen great results from task oriented behavior.
I don't mean that it does not produce what was asked for. I'm saying that tasks even when created by engineering and product teams are often wrong.
I lean very heavily towards outcome based prompting. Say exactly what do you want achieved and then maybe give some constraints, ie. what definitely not to do.
In my experiments, this has always produced much, much better results.
Interestingly, it's less engineering and more customer focus.
Anecdotally, I think this is a much bigger cleanup than just talking to the administration.
I think there's a wider damage done which there is no coming back from. And this is for the USA, not Anthropic.
The chance that sovereignty and rules such as this could be applied to AI was a concern that a lot of people had, but the risk was unknown.
Speaking for myself, I had guessed this would happen at some point of time. I was expecting/hoping it'd be years away.
However given the events in the last few days it greatly increases my concern with building any product which can depend on an on an API which could go away for a number of my customers.
I've been experimenting with other open weight models hosted in favorable sovereign countries for a few months, but this accelerates something which was an experiment to now being a must-have.
I don't think it is going to be easy for any of the parties to repair this easily.
Interestingly I've had a similar experience with agent teams/swarms, albeit they can get much more expensive depending on the workflow.
I found that Fable didn't have as much of an impact when put in a team.
But it was/is a very pleasant model to work with 1:1. And was the first time I didn't use my primary team based workhorse in months, across 10s of sessions last week.
Compute was constrained. There is a lot happening, especially with chinese chips which currently points to a massive upcoming increase in non-US capacity.
Yes, I'm with the author. I'm absolutely sick of constantly reading AI content.
But if I have to really dig into it deep, a lot of the people who send me AI content now, weren't sending me anything meaningful to begin with (pre ai).
The number of organizations I have been around where most people just copy paste each other's messages is no joke. This was happening long before AI came along. AI has just made it so much more obvious.
Previously they might have copied it from Joe in Product. Now it all sounds like Claude or GPT.
I was half expecting/hoping this would talk about the opportunity cost of owning a home. More precisely, owning a primary residence.
There are quite a few studies about this, but it is something which is not discussed broadly enough. But there is a inverse relationship between home ownership and income.
Because for most regions across the globe, once someone buys a home, they start looking for work that's in geographic proximity to their primary residence. And in most parts of the world, incomes generally tend to stagnate since higher paying jobs are almost always away from where people live.
Now a lot of people believe that they will pick the higher income, but the amount of logistics which goes into thinking about selling your home or renting it even often dissuades people from trying to look for a job which pays significantly more.
Interestingly, some multinational companies that I know of facilitate the entire transaction for their executives and senior managers when they need to move cities or countries because of this effect.
Owning a home for the purpose of investment and not living is a different matter, and the same effect isn't seen there.