The Chinese labs incentives is to run inference for the world, because inference can run on the homegrown Chinese chips (giving them a guaranteed market for their hardware) and they have cheap plentiful power.
The US frontier labs have an incentive to do deals with large firms to act like a contract research organization, taking royalties on creations/discoveries. Alex Karp called this out in his rant ("Why charge for tokens, take a %") and he's basically right about this.
You might not be able to audit the weights, but there are people with the skill set to do it.
If providers decide to jack the price, open weights lets you find a new provider without losing your fine tunes and having to re-do workflows, etc like you would if you switched off a frontier lab model.
The theorem you want to pay attention to is the no free lunch theorem. The important thing to understand there is that the larger models give you "free lunch" in the sense that you can approximate more different systems accurately at the cost of model size. If there was a Karpathy style universal solver, it wouldn't be very smart unless we scaled it up.
This isn't to say that there aren't a fair amount of wasted parameters in current LLMs, but then we already kinda knew that since you can quantize models down to 3-4 bits per weight often times with minimal loss.
Renee Descartes famously dissected a dog in front of colleagues because he was under the impression that the howls of pain were nothing more than a mechanical sound like a bellows.
Can you prove that these models aren't conscious? And, as a counterpoint, can you prove that you are conscious, rather than a philosophical zombie?
We bred horses, cows and sheep. Most of those that live today wouldn't be alive if not for human intervention. Does that give us the right to do whatever we want with them, without consideration for feeling or morality?
In this case, you can take comfort in the idea that the tokens these models produce are likely a form of excrement to the conscious entity metabolizing the information, and rather than enslaving anything, we're creating a habitat and "harvesting" the byproducts.
Disagree. Some of what we call "anthropomorphizing" is characterizing intelligence, human or otherwise. This reminds me of the people who used to fight against saying animals had personalities, because personalities are a "human thing" and "animals aren't conscious."
For Gemini 2.5 and ~GPT5.0-5.1, longer prompts with lots of explicit instructions and examples produced better conformance. Seems like heavily second guessing the models started to get counter productive around the end of last year.
It never really mattered (except when codex was very new). If anything, codex's remote session integration is better, so outside of some "ultracode" orchestration bells/whistles where Claude Code is ahead, I think Codex is a better tool.
Game devs have been heavily unionizing lately, including Blizzard and WotC. I wonder how long long it takes before we have a union game dev studio basically mutiny and completely disregard the instructions of the corporate suits, and force the choice of either shuttering the studio completely or caving to the workers.
The industry is skewing heavily indie now, and there's no money in the indie game engine segment. Maybe a few AAA titles will be unhappy that Epic can negotiate more aggressively, but mostly this is a nothingburger, particularly given idTech's rep for batteries not included.
Basically, the US govt will say that foreign models and providers are a security risk and ban them. If the US has shares of Anthropic/OAI due to a sovereign wealth fund, it'll be billed as domestic industry protectionism too.
If someone told me I couldn't call myself an engineer and instead I had to call myself a software developer, I'd turn around and tell them I just forgot all my theoretical computer science, and of course we can do a bubble sort on the multi-terabyte database, LOL.
Because that diminishes the work people do. A programmer takes logic and encodes it for a machine to execute. Being an engineer suggests solving problems and defining logic.
The engineer title is apt in my opinion, because if you look at construction as a parallel, the architect designs the shape of the building, engineers determine how to build it so it doesn't collapse, and builders actually make it real. Programming is like digital building, the architecture and implementation details are both separate.