[mindcrime]

> Do you want the US to "win" AI?

I don't want any one particular country, or organization, to "win" AI. I want AI capabilities to remain diffuse and spread out, so that everybody has access to approximately equal levels of AI. If anything, you might say that I want "Open Source to win AI".

[oceansky]

That's the last thing big tech companies want. Maybe Meta being the odd exception with Llama.

[rienbdj]

Meta wants the models to be cheap and available because their strength is the context data and platform control.

[mamcx]

The TOTAL opposite!

Getting free labour, lipstick of "freedom", and enable to put millions invested in what open source never can do: Scaling, infra, win big contracts, etc.

Open Source NEVER win the market game.

It only give consolation to few that can run things locally.

[awestroke]

Meta is not in the AI game any more

[tim333]

LLM Arena has them at #3 on the overview, behind Anthropic and Google, ahead of Grok and OpenAI.

[pjc50]

Didn't they just announce they were going to be surveilling all their employees screens and keystrokes for AI training? Is that just for the love of the game rather than as part of a product?

[oceansky]

That's probably just for internal metrics, automating dev work and facilitate stack ranking. Not to release a product necessarily.

[oceansky]

Just saw Zuckerberg post from July 2025 saying they are going to be "careful" with what they release.

[trvz]

1) In the AI world, that's a very long time ago

2) That still equates to "Meta is not in the AI game any more" in meta-corporate speak

[oceansky]

Yes, point two is what I meant.

[insane_dreamer]

Apple, at least at present.

[elcritch]

Right, in particular my belief long term is that there must be functional open source AI + Robotics that common people can own and operate.

Otherwise big corporations and/or governments will own everything and most folks will be serfs. However if you can buy a few robots and go run a homestead then there can be a counterbalance of people not beholden to the system.

A telling sign of techno-feudalism will be AI becoming heavily regulated and even illegal for common people to make or own. You know because “public safety”.

[keybored]

This smells like how markets would work well if everyone had a little capital. But money is too fungible. The more you have the more you can get.

But if electricity and hardware is a proxy for AI then those things are much less fungible. And if those two things in turn are not tied to the hip with money.

> If anything, you might say that I want "Open Source to win AI".

Has OSS won in terms of being software for the people?

[jayknight]

>I want AI capabilities to remain diffuse and spread out...

The most widely used AI systems are controlled by a few billionaires. I'd like to see it become much more spread out.

[mindcrime]

Fair. I could have phrased that better. I agree, things should ideally become even more diffuse than they currently are!

[sjs382]

AI gets better with more resources. Even if you have access to the software/models, those with more money to throw at better hardware (and the cost associated with running it) will be better positioned.

I wish we had a good way to solve for that.