this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
28 points (100.0% liked)

technology

23871 readers
261 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KnilAdlez@hexbear.net 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Eh, a lot of American models are open too. Meta's llama and Microsofts phi for example. But if a chinese company can make a better model and release it for free, then why use anything else?

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There are some, but most are closed and especially top end ones like Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini. Meanwhile, Chinese companies are now increasingly releasing their top end models with no strings attached.

[–] combat_brandonism@hexbear.net 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

idk about the Chinese companies but in the case of facebook it's a pretty naked case of commoditizing their complements, not some altruistic play at positive-sum technobloomerism

the cheaper slop generation gets the better it is for facebook, the slop platform. it's weird that google hasn't made the same decision

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 week ago

There doesn't need to be any altruistic intent here. Facebook released their models because they fell behind OpenAI, and they realized that they could compete in selling them as a service. So, they pivoted to treating models like a commodity as you note. It still leads to a positive-sum cooperation scenario however regardless of the underlying intent.

Fundamentally, there's a competition between two business models here. Google, Anthropic, and OpenAI think they can stay far enough ahead with their proprietary models that they can continue to sell them as subscription services. Meanwhile, other companies don't see models as a direct source of revenue, and see them as a tool building platform.