HN

Comments (32)

• Menu

  Linserin
  Just saw on Microsofthttps://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/top...
• Menu

  christina97
  I wonder what is happening behind closed doors for these companies to be issuing such a joint letter.
• Menu

  paxys
  I agree with the message, but I'm not going to accept it from this particular crowd.Microsoft, NVIDIA, Meta, Palantir, IBM...They have all been actively hostile to open source for decades, and have a history of embracing it only when convenient and profitable.Microsoft benefited from its close partnership with OpenAI for years right up until it went sour. Where was this enthusiasm for open weights then?Meta was developing open models and then abandoned that effort in search for profits. Muse Spark is now fully closed.All these companies have the resouces to train and release frontier open weights models today, but choose not to. So spare me the marketing and virtue signaling.
• Catloafdev
  Reassuring to see this backed by major players.This is the correct stance, hopefully this is the stance that prevails.
• Menu

  sweetheart
  It makes a ton of sense to see this sort of joint effort being made by these enormous companies, but man, there's some part of me that can't help but feel grossed out knowing the best way to get the US to make the right choice is to have a handful of elite business people say it'd be bad for them.
• Menu

  austin-schick
  I'm finding the list of signatories on this letter really interesting and somewhat confusing, looking purely through the lens of economic interest.It makes sense to see Meta, the startups, and the VC firms on this list. And it makes sense to see OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google all missing. Microsoft is somewhat unexpected to me. I don't think of them as having a focus on open weight models (no more than Google), and they have a large stake in OpenAI. Maybe they're looking at this from the angle of Azure providing compute. But then why is Amazon missing, when it has AWS?And of course, we don't see DeepSeek, Moonshot, or Z.ai on here. The letter is about American technological leadership after all. But then we _do_ see the French company Mistral! Mistral who released [a playbook](https://europe.mistral.ai/) for Europe becoming a self-reliant AI powerhouse.I assume all of this is in the context of influencing the Trump administration's thinking on Chinese open weights models. But the letter is really about _American_ open weights models. The call to action is all about keeping the American open weights ecosystem competitive. I didn't even realize that was under threat, so I feel like I'm missing something.
• ChrisArchitect
  Related:China’s open-weights AI strategy is winninghttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48979269The arguments against open source AI are badhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49024643AI Kill Switch Act: Official Bill Text by Reps. Lieu and Moranhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49028757
• Menu

  satvikpendem
  The issue is not open weights as a whole, indeed Hegseth himself said they are important for America (if American made, presumably); the issue is Chinese models, whether open or not, and that's what's looking to be banned, and nothing in this article suggests otherwise.
• anon
  undefined
• gaigalas
  > Open source did more than lower the cost of software; it created a shared foundation of knowledge on which generations of American engineers and entrepreneurs built their institutional sovereigntyHey nvidia, what about making your full set of linux drivers open source?I mean, I do agree that being open is important but you're hijacking the narrative here, and I suspect being open have nothing to do with any of this.
• Menu

  some_furry
  I don't personally have a horse in this race, but if you want to accurately predict the next step:Start with the outcome you believe will be the most in line with the spirit and traditions of the open source community. This is precisely what won't happen.It won't necessarily be the inverse. It could be, of course, but it's also likely to be a compromise between the two.For a topical example: The companies doing "AI" layoffs aren't doing so out of a sense of having failed their staff that helped carry them so far. Often, these announcements come on the heels of record-breaking profits. They're doing it out of contempt for workers.See https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/cory-doctoro... for Doctorow's take on centaurs vs. reverse centaurs. Broadly speaking: C-suite business leadership wants reverse centaurs. Workers want centaurs. Unless you have a union (or some other collective bargaining power structure that I'm not aware of), the C-suite calls the shots.The same can be said of the current administration. They don't give a fuck what most of us want on any given issue. They're captured by an aggressive ideology. Their only incentive is to be able to spin their decision to make themselves look good; to posture as "strong" leadership.