holandrés

bark

[holandrés @kwaehao]

passado, presente e futuro

[holandrés @kwaehao]

@snifferish @aw0d1l awesome, would you mind sharing the config?

[holandrés @kwaehao]

@aw0d1l @snifferish looks like complementary but i am not entirely sure https://t.co/av7qBJqyve

[Alexandru Fartade @KullAxel]

There are open source alternatives to Microsoft, Office and GPU drive.

No one is lobbying to take this open source alternatives down, while for sure Anthropic is lobbying to take open source AI down.

You can decide to be closed source, but deciding to lobby for banning your open source alternatives is not good

[holandrés @kwaehao]

@illusq_ guess which one is weekly

[FactPost @factpostnews]

The Trump administration has legalized the killing of endangered species formerly protected under the Endangered Species Act.

[holandrés @kwaehao]

@tecitoarizona wdym?

[holandrés @kwaehao]

@bloo_p3pper What the fuck

[holandrés @kwaehao]

@Rawlala1 @DripHacker @MikeMumbelz @Polymarket Well yes, thatd be the consequence theyd get for stealing in the first place.
You can make case out of distilled chinese models but that's a diff concern;

One could argue that, if they kept on distilling off of frontier models, the data related to the books would disappear too

[holandrés @kwaehao]

@Rawlala1 @DripHacker @MikeMumbelz @Polymarket By training a new model that does not contain those books as part of the dataset?

[holandrés @kwaehao]

@DripHacker @MikeMumbelz @Polymarket how exactly are they supposed to do that einsteins

[Haru343 @Haru3433]

来时的路

[kache @yacineMTB]

Our job is to solve problems, not write code

[holandrés @kwaehao]

@ColdCriti the use of blender (or 3d art itself rather) is an art medium though? are you incapable of recognizing that?

[Geoff Shullenberger @g_shullenberger]

Again, this is how leading *capitalists* talk today; meanwhile, this site is full of right-wingers decrying the youth for not believing in “capitalism” anymore.

[holandrés @kwaehao]

@DecartAI Is this an open source model or will it only be available through an API?

What are the guard-rails that would help avoid abuse and protect vulnerable groups (i.e. children)?

[holandrés @kwaehao]

@Grummz So hopefully you'll be able to finish your game by then?

[holandrés @kwaehao]

@trikcode Heya, I took a look at the platform itself and found a couple of bugs, is there a place where I could point them out?

[dax @thdxr]

"One probable outcome of an open-weight-model-dominant world is full AI communism"

[holandrés @kwaehao]

>"los modelos open source son malos"
>look inside
>persona que vive de vender modelos closed source

[holandrés @kwaehao]

> Open-weight models are inherently decelerationist.

Did open source software help decelerate closed-source software? Or are you just spewing what Opus told you to?

[Dean W. Ball @deanwball]

Some observations on Kimi:

1. It's a very good model! I don't think its performance can be explained away by distillation or anything like that. In agentic coding sessions, it seems pretty much on par with the best public models of Q1 2026. In my fairly limited use, it also seemed very token hungry. It's not obvious to me that this model is actually that cheap to run.

2. I am personally surprised the Chinese state continues to allow the open sourcing of models this good, given potential risks. To be clear, I *myself* might be fine with models presenting this level of marginal risk being open weight, but I am surprised that China is fine with it. I suspect the reason they are is 75% explained by strategic blindness/lack of AGI-pilledness (the CCP is very Yann Lecun-y in its views of AI). The other 25% or so is their lack of compute for customer inference (making China's open-weight strategy an unintended byproduct of US export controls) and the normal Chinese strategy of aggressive exports. For the companies, as opposed to the government, the decision to open source is partially ideological and partially because they are behind, and they know that very few people would pay for sub-frontier models from China.

3. Open-weight models are inherently decelerationist, and I'm continually surprised to see the so-called "accelerationists" so excited about open-weight models. I suspect the reason they are is that they know open-weight models are effectively ungovernable, and they simply like the overall cloak of ungovernability open-weight models create over the whole of AI. It's not a bad strategy; it reminds me of James Scott's recounting of the hill people in "the art of not being governed." Still, in the end, open-weight models deter further AI capex.

4. One probable outcome of an open-weight-model-dominant world is full AI communism, which is precisely what China proposes: rather than a market product, AI is a "public good" which will ultimately be provided by the state as a kind of "digital public infrastructure." This future strikes me as a dystopian hellscape, but I've never met an open-weight models advocate who doesn't ultimately concede this is where things end. You'd be surprised how many 'accelerationists' lobbied me, while I was in government, to support an eleven or twelve-figure federally funded data center so that startups could train models at a subsidy and then give them away for free. There was no other way for AI to progress, they said. Perhaps this is the logical end state of things. Nonetheless, I find myself surprised to see supposed accelerationists excited about such an outcome. I think many of them just don't know what they're doing. Many accelerationists do not view the creation and serving of frontier models as a legitimate business.

5. I would guess that the Trump Administration will at some point realize that their best strategy here would be to create large amounts of regulatory risk around the use of open-weight Chinese models. You don't need to "ban open source" (one of the dumber motifs of AI policy discussion). You just need to direct every agency to issue soft law that creates FUD. "A Federal Reserve Advisory Bulletin found that there may be backdoors in Chinese AI models." It needn't be that well justified. You just create enough regulatory risk that every regulated enterprise backs off. You probably don't want to create so much regulatory risk that you scare off the hyperscalers from serving Chinese models; this will just drive startups to sketchier providers. There's a happy middle ground here. I'd assume they will do some version of this.

6. It's probably true that open-weight models of this capability make the world a bit more dangerous, but not so much more that you'll really notice. At some point the models will be capable enough that you will notice. "A nonliving, invisible, dangerous, and infinitely self-replicating agent escaped from a Chinese lab," you say? Color me shocked.

[Loser Homo @glassass_]

I hope the rise of AI has been enough to show you that even SMALL business owners are still oppurtinistic capitalists with no morals who believe all their employees and customers are brainless cattle.