[capevace]

> In most US-adjacent countries like India, anyone that sells to US companies I see avoiding chinese model providers for the same reason

But the argument isn’t about model providers tho right (providing inference)? Using Chinese providers is already a privacy problem if user data is involved, so I don’t know if anything would change here.

What you’re suggesting is that the policy would stop big co‘s from running their own inference completely, no? Or only the foreign open source models?

> don't bother analysing it technically

I feel you have to, because where’s the line? Is running GPT-OSS myself fine (if I were a big company)? Mistral models? Or are none of them ok? What about if I am getting inference from a small startup, which is running OSS models for me? Or is only OAI/Anthropic ok?

[porridgeraisin]

Nothing will be truly banned. As in, you can always run and use all the chinese models. Startups will use them. Like I said, they will simply use soft regulations to ensure that all the major players who due to power law will form a majority of the economy, will be using OAI/Ant. If JP Morgan wants to run their own Deepseek V4 on their own hardware, why would the US government care? They simply don't want them using chinese model providers. That is all. However, today, the fact of the matter is that frontier model self-hosting in Fortune companies is DOA, everyone is using APIs. I am not saying this can never change in the future, but seeing past trends, people don't even host their own frikkin source control, so I find it hard to believe JPMC is going to host Deepseek V7 or whatever. You might, and I might, but only the top few thousand mega enterprise deals matter economically speaking. Doordash using qwen for dish classification is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things (which is not to say it won't be profitable for alibaba).

[adrian_b]

It is not clear that "model self-hosting in Fortune companies is DOA".

Among the chiefs of the Fortune companies there is no complete unity, as some think that they should receive some of the AI profits, instead of OpenAI and Anthropic.

Recently, both the CEO of Palantir and then the CEO of Microsoft have criticized quite harshly the business model of OpenAI and Anthropic, implying that it is bad both for society and for their corporate customers.

None of those two would come first in mind for altruistic behavior, so their criticisms must be based on business reasons.

For the CEO of Palantir, it is clear that the criticism was a sales pitch for a new Palantir product (Sovereign AI), which is a turn-key system including all hardware and software needed by a company to self-host AI model inference and also training or fine tuning.

It is less clear which is the motivation of Microsoft. If they do not like the business model of OpenAI and Anthropic, then this means that they also want to compete with them, but that cannot be the same as what Palantir proposes, i.e. self-hosting on premises. Perhaps Microsoft also wants to propose some kind of self-hosting, but instead of on premises, doing it on some kind of Azure instances.

So the Chinese are not the only "enemies" for OpenAI and Anthropic.

[porridgeraisin]

Oh yeah I've been seeing the nadella posts on twitter, which I presume are aimed at those reporting to him primarily. Agreed on them and palantir. But even if that is the case I believe the risk due the "soft regulations" I mentioned above and the lucrative customers being government or major government contractors would mean them using openai/anthropic models maybe on a separate on-prem deployment or existing government azure deployments. My statement as phrased was too strong I responded to a picture in my head of JPMC deploying open source models using their own tech team.