> This is wishcasting. People are raising the alarm because models like GLM-5.2 and Kimi K3 have already displaced demand for frontier models in highly demanding fields like security research. There's no amount of money that you can pay for "premium" access to Mythos, so those researchers are taking their money to inference providers that give them comparable models.

It's not wish casting whatever that means. The crux of the argument isn't as much of a capability one as it is an economic one. If China can release open source models like these to displace demand for frontier models so can American companies. It's just that it's not profitable enough for them to do so at this time.

The point about Mythos doesn't strengthen your argument, it weakens it.

> Why do you conflate all of these businesses with vastly different business strategies to one another?

They have different business strategies, but at the end of the day they are all directionally aligned. Even if you wanted to extract a few of these companies and say they're not relevant, you can grab a handful and just make the same legitimate argument. Do I believe you, or do I believe the people with trillions at stake. I believe the folks actually doing the work and with money at stake. I have yet to find a convincing argument otherwise.

> There is no "American companies" coalition. They're all reacting in drastically different ways and your eagerness to conflate them suggests that you don't have any real position outside tribalist "us vs them" pugilism.

Sure but there's an American government coalition which American companies will have to accommodate whether that's regulation, economic schemes, or otherwise. See? You just proved it right here:

> Anthropic bent over backwards to appease American censorship demands and push cringeworthy marketing campaigns to capture LLM mindshare with Claude.

>It's not wish casting whatever that means. The crux of the argument isn't as much of a capability one as it is an economic one. If China can release open source models like these to displace demand for frontier models so can American companies. It's just that it's not profitable enough for them to do so at this time.

I would back you if:

1) The American companies had not run up debts in the $100bn range. 2) If there was an open source business model that could create $100bn companies or pay down $100bn of debt. 3) There was a convincing moat such as a social media network effect - I mean that lasted 10 years or so for Meta - or ways for them to create a supplier based monopoly like MS did with IBM, Dell, Compaq,.. or Google has with Samsung and Apple. I think that it might be that the consumer use case could yet be tied to Samsung and Apple, so Google might do it again, but ATM I dunno if consumer use cases are the thing here.

>Do I believe you, or do I believe the people with trillions at stake. I believe the folks actually doing the work and with money at stake. I have yet to find a convincing argument otherwise.

Go look at SpaceX's shareprice.

You are being taken for a ride.

> 1) The American companies had not run up debts in the $100bn range.

How are Chinese companies financing their buildouts of AI infrastructure?

> 2) If there was an open source business model that could create $100bn companies or pay down $100bn of debt.

Companies are formed and consult on Linux for example. Idk where this $100bn number comes from but it seems too low to me anyway.

> 3) There was a convincing moat such as a social media network effect

Well you don't need a moat to be a successful business. But maybe the moat is that the models are just more capable. We're in the very early stages of this stuff from what I can tell.

> Go look at SpaceX's shareprice.

This is a bad argument. Share prices rise and fall all the time with or without material concerns. It can be snowing and folks will sell shares just because. Also SpaceX's share price (not that I'm an investor) doesn't really move the needle relative to the scale of the market or the AI companies involved.

> You are being taken for a ride.

How do you know folks aren't taking you for a ride instead?

> How are Chinese companies financing their buildouts of AI infrastructure?

The same way that OpenAI and Anthropic will dig themselves out of the hole; By pawning off the training costs onto taxpaying citizens.

> Well you don't need a moat to be a successful business.

glances at Nvidia

Do you mind repeating that line a little louder?

> How do you know folks aren't taking you for a ride instead?

I do know that I'm being taken for a ride. I pay taxes to this ass-backwards US government, and they beg me to pay $20/month for their tokens in return. I've been using a $3/month GLM-5.2 subscription and have gotten probably 10x more value from it than I ever got buying Claude Code. This American AI nonsense is too expensive for my blood, and too censored for legitimate research.

> It's not wish casting whatever that means.

Wishcasting is describing a hypothetical. Your statement was about what you think America can do, but not about what it has proven to do already. It is wishcasting by any definition you'll find online. Economic roadblocks are not any less important than capability roadblocks, look at how proprietary UNIX went from a billion-dollar IP business to being entirely cannibalized by "good enough" free alternatives like Linux and BSD. You can whine and call Linux/BSD "communist plots" or decry them for being less powerful than AIX, but history was not kind to nonfree UNIX-like software. They died out, and a superior alternative flourished in it's place. Same happened to Texas Instruments, Espressif and STMicroelectronics IP - American adversaries have access to better, cheaper microcontrollers than America's supply chain can compete with. China's clones already won.

> The point about Mythos doesn't strengthen your argument, it weakens it.

Does it? I don't think Anthropic is profitable yet, show me the balance sheet that confirms Mythos and Fable are putting them in the black. Even with "premium" models, Anthropic and OpenAI are both finding out that it's not enough to move the needle. Hell, their desire to IPO should be enough to understand that their future is overpriced B2B rice bowl contracts and not some benevolent B2C relationship like Google and Apple fought over. Even XAI/SpaceX deserves a crumb of credit for recognizing that the winner is whoever helps the US government transgress the laws of God fastest. The taxpayer is the only one that can feasibly foot the bill, and China has recognized this from Day 1 (say what you will about Xi Jinping thought).

> I believe the folks actually doing the work and with money at stake. I have yet to find a convincing argument otherwise.

Some great consolation that would be, if you said the same thing for Enron, Theranos, Vision Pro, Meta Quest, Microsoft Groove, Google+, Juicero, Hololens... why, you could be convinced to buy any of history's most dogshit technology. Remember, an appeal to authority is just one third of effective rhetoric.

> Sure but there's an American government coalition which American companies will have to accommodate

In a so-called free market, that's the most heretical and counterintuitive solution that you can concoct. Laissez-faire lore would have us believe that competition is keeping the market alive, but it's the regulation that is preventing America's businesses from releasing their most powerful models. If this becomes a political policy issue, then China has already won. At that point, America might as well forfeit to save money that would have been wasted on "AGI" research graft.

> Your statement was about what you think America can do, but not about what it has proven to do already.

Sorry that's nonsense. You can't simultaneously project a hypothetical Chinese capability that it hasn't proven it can do (develop the leading models) and then deny the ability of the US to do the same.

> China's clones already won.

Ok we'll just copy their stuff then who cares because apparently bleeding edge model development doesn't matter.

> Does it?

Yes - it proves that leading edge American AI companies can develop products sophisticated enough that they deliver true competitive advantages that have to be guarded. It's like, the thing is so valuable you can't even buy it. Have you ever tried to buy a Ferrari or Lamborghini or something? It's a bit like that.

> Some great consolation that would be, if you said the same thing for Enron, Theranos, Vision Pro, Meta Quest, Microsoft Groove, Google+, Juicero, Hololens... why, you could be convinced to buy any of history's most dogshit technology. Remember, an appeal to authority is just one third of effective rhetoric.

Well if you want to go that route, China will collapse because all communist governments in history except China (and I guess North Korea but that's arguable more of a monarchy of sorts) have failed. Guess that means China loses!

The broader point is you and others are simply saying things, while incredibly smart people with trillions of dollars at stake are doing things counter to your claims. Of course authority isn't a great argument, but considering you haven't provided any sort of economic model that says Google will completely fail at its AI ambitions because idk some Chinese companies released some open source models, leaves us with not a lot of options to go on. Might as well trust the folks with money at stake and who are doing the real work. Why would I trust your comment over Google's business decisions? Yea they could be wrong, it doesn't mean it isn't the right choice at the time.

It's similar to vaccine risk that sprung up during COVID-19. Folks thought they were making an informed decision by eschewing the vaccine in favor of some unknown and unknowable risk instead of the risk that's right there in front of them and known.

> In a so-called free market, that's the most heretical and counterintuitive solution that you can concoct.

But it happened so I'm not sure what to tell you. You yourself have demonstrated that. The free-market can still exists while also being regulated by the government. Evidence? Look around. Separately to claim that the US is losing because it is requiring AI companies to do some sort of thing would also have to apply to China who is doing the same.

> At that point, America might as well forfeit to save money that would have been wasted on "AGI" research graft.

Well, if you're right we should save money and make China spend all of their money building models and then we'll just copy their strategy.

I'm not sure why you and others seem to assume that China (or Iran or whomever) can take some action and that we can't also take some action in response. Let me guess, hypersonic missiles! Iran closed the Strait!? Chinese AI open source?! It's all the same version of a failed mental model. A similar one would be Americans or other westerns assuming that other countries can't do things or aren't smart enough or don't have the ability to build or engineering better things than we can. You're making that exact same mistake here.

> You can't simultaneously project a hypothetical Chinese capability that it hasn't proven it can do (develop the leading models)

China does lead the frontier. If you're a cybersecurity researcher, a biologist or work in any other censored field, there's nothing that the American models can do for you. The frontier effectively begins where abliterated models can be distributed, and America releases none of them at-scale.

You can't just claim that cybersecurity and biology are non-factors in this race. There are objectively areas where Chinese AI is the only frontier; American regulation is entirely to blame.

> It's like, the thing is so valuable you can't even buy it.

We have a word for this in software actually, it's called "vaporware" in modern parlance. Good luck convincing people that Xenix and Duke Nukem Forever are too valuable for the public to own.

America's stance towards legitimate cybersecurity research is why American businesses like HuggingFace do their incident responses with GLM-5.2. If American AI is "so valuable" that people can't buy the frontier to fix legitimate problems, then China wins by default. It's already happening in several industry-leading American firms, they're not paying Anthropic or OpenAI to fix their real issues.

> Ok we'll just copy their stuff then who cares because apparently bleeding edge model development doesn't matter.

Yes, do this. OpenAI and Anthropic will inevitably turn to the US government for funding, which means that taxpayers will be financially supporting model training for weights that they won't own. If the purpose of AI research is to entrench the monopoly on power, then I would genuinely advocate for all taxpayer funds to be withheld from OpenAI and Anthropic since their products aren't contributing to the public good. There is literally no reason to copy China's state-driven investment strategy if we're not also going to copy the public ownership model. You might as well let China do the frontier research, and let America focus on hand-wringing over the consequences and writing censorship laws to prevent citizens from accessing uncensored Chinese models.

After all, it's where we're headed regardless of what China does. Anthropic, OpenAI and the current US administration have made that clear.

> Why would I trust your comment over Google's business decisions?

My comment doesn't contradict Google's business decisions. It's not an oxymoron to highlight a bad decision as part of a grander AI strategy; but so far you've failed to engage on the actual grounds of FAANG's strategies itself. You're just insisting that American businesses are right because they spend a lot of money, while failing to acknowledge that "spending lots of money" is how most financial crises start. Therefore, it seems appropriate that we acknowledge wasted investments if we want American businesses to stop digging a hole they can't get out of. The onus falls on you to argue that things like OpenCL should have died, or that the Neural Engine was the right choice for millions of iPhone owners.

The point I'm making in this regard isn't complex, you're just offended by the notion of these businesses making wrong decisions. Metal Compute Shaders is not an industry-leading inference solution. It just isn't, the free market already decided. Apple could have increased their addressable market during the datacenter boom if they supported an agnostic GPGPU compute layer like OpenCL in Apple Silicon; or, they could have freed the PCIe lanes on the rackmount Mac Pro to make it a legitimate CUDA host in a world spending trillions on ARM datacenter hardware. Instead they abandoned Khronos group, insisted on standardizing around Metal, and discontinued the Mac Pro.

Apple made some right decisions here. They also burned billions of dollars in R&D and abandoned a trillion-dollar market segment by discontinuing the Mac Pro. Despite being the most advanced ARM core designer in the world, Apple was enamored by B2C service profits and actively avoided any genuine competition that would pressure Nvidia or Apple themselves to invest in frontier research. As the richest American tech company, Apple completely failed to pivot their stack into AI inference even 10 years after CoreML was reluctantly introduced.

Compare this to how, for instance, Huawei works, and you'll see pretty quickly why ego-poisoned businesses like Apple are the antithesis of free market competition. Apple doesn't want to compete, they want to make money. They love ignoring genuinely innovative technology

> I'm not sure why you and others seem to assume that China [...] can take some action and that we can't also take some action in response

Well, China has a centrally planned economy for one. There are objectively things that their government can finance that the United States cannot reciprocally copy.