this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2026
69 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

86633 readers
3614 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nkat2112@sh.itjust.works 32 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

The article wastes no time getting to the underlying point in the very first paragraph:

Top executives at leading Western AI companies are increasingly warning about the safety and national security risks posed by Chinese open-weight frontier models. What they tend not to mention is that these models are improving rapidly and, because they are freely available, pose a serious threat to Western labs’ business models.

I found the following two paragraphs interesting:

By mid-2026, however, open-weight frontier models from Chinese labs such as Alibaba, DeepSeek, and Moonshot AI had nearly matched the leading Western models in intelligence and performance. Many companies have already begun building their AI systems on top of these free models, avoiding the high cost of closed-model APIs.

Because businesses can host open-weight models in their own private clouds, they can also avoid sending proprietary data to systems controlled by outside providers. Developers can fine-tune the models for specific needs, build applications and tools on top of them, and optimize them for their preferred infrastructure.

[–] Mosfar@sh.itjust.works 26 points 3 hours ago

Back to local computing is the way to go

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 21 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

they can also avoid sending proprietary data to systems controlled by outside providers.

Not only proprietary but also personal or other kinds of sensitive data.
If you are doing health research on databases of personal health data, you should be able to guarantee the safety of that data.
That means you can't use the current American systems, because they've been shown to be insecure.
This would be a major issue in EU, where such data is legally protected.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

This would be a major issue in EU, where such data is legally protected.

Nothing a EU–US Data Privacy Framework can't handle.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

I absolutely agree that that agreement is complete and utter bullshit.
Hopefully the shift there has been to achieve IT independence from USA will mean EU doesn't give in so easy next time.

[–] cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

These people are too rich to be punished by laws. They're the people laws protect not the ones they bind.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Not in EU, Eu has given fines to those big tech companies before and can do it again.

[–] cavitationfetishist2@quokk.au 1 points 10 minutes ago* (last edited 8 minutes ago)

More than their profits? Their profits over course of the shittiness?

Being less bald face and trying to hide your corruption better than America doesn't make you the good guy.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 24 minutes ago

Fines are just the cost of doing business.

Wake me up when corporate charters are dissolved and executives are put in prison.