The knowledge that makes AI useful is diffused. It lives with scientists, engineers, clinicians, firms. For AI to benefit from distributed knowledge, it must itself be distributed. Agree with Jensen that this is a future worth building.
For my first post, I’m sharing a letter @NVIDIA signed on why open models matter.
AI will transform every industry, power every company, and be built by every country.
Open models strengthen safety and cybersecurity, accelerate innovation and diffusion, and enable sovereignty.
The world needs both frontier closed models and frontier open models.
https://t.co/AUKzoQ5Ikb
@johnschulman2 The model's "J space" is likely to be quite incriminating and could create more liability. HF should sue them and demand it in discovery.
So proud of our security team! They caught, contained & publicly disclosed an attack unlike anything we've seen before, and did it at record speed.
Also massively grateful to @Zai_org: they shared GLM5.2 as open weights (for free!) with the world and it became a key part of our defense.
This is day one for cybersecurity in the age of agents & we're all learning that secrecy is not the answer & that all defenders (not just a few selected ones) everywhere need more powerful models without restrictions, especially open ones!
@ChrisRMcGuire@jimcramer So protect leading US AI companies by forcing Americans to pay protectionist prices? Obviously that's not how they're framing it, but that's the truth.
There are three ways the models might be accessed. 1) API. 2) Self hosted in the cloud. 3) Self hosted on premises.
Number one and two are only practical to enforce for services subject to US jurisdiction. Number three is completely unenforceable.
A ban will likely end up encouraging the adoption of the third option which is essentially sovereign AI. This is exactly what the big proprietary doomer labs and the national security apparatus want to stop. It is also probably where rational market participants are headed regardless.
Tricking the US Government to protect frontier labs’ business model by using a China boogeyman is a mistake.
It is protecting the equity of 5,000 people who are investors in OAI and Ant at the sale of everyone else. This would be a terribly stupid decision.
Let the market sort this out!
The events of the past few weeks may simply mean that the frontier labs’ business model is not good and that their revenues aren’t sustainable.
That’s ok. It’s ok to have a business model that worked for some time then all of a sudden didn’t (remember Groupon)!
This still leaves a lot of value for a lot of other American companies:
- CPUs
- GPUs
- hyperscalers
- neoclouds
- rack manufacturers
- electricity and power
- skilled trades
- application layer AI
None of this value goes away. In fact, if the model layers’ costs decrease by 10-100x, competition would accelerate and I would argue that the value to everyone else will go up more than what is lost.
Let the free market sort this out vs allowing two companies whose stock is owned by less than 5,000 people decide this for America.
Every industry/ecosystem has its supreme village idiot. @deanwball is that for AI. Congress passed a law in 2026 that restricted some uses of DeepSeek/High Flyer with waivers permitted. Only those models. It went through the democratic process not some Deep State scheme like he would prefer. Dean Ball has perhaps the biggest gap between actual IQ and his own perceived IQ of anyone in the industry (about 40 points).