one thing that is probably a pretty deep crux between me and many advocates of open source models is i have *basically no sense that they can make a real positive difference* it's not just that i think they're dangerous, and so must be banned at all costs. if i really thought there was some semi-stable equilibrium w significantly more diversity and individual freedom that was reachable via proliferation of open superintelligence, it might be worth pursuing. i am not against the first amendment. i find massive value in freedom. but i don't actually see any such path, and i basically don't see people arguing clearly for it either. as best as i can tell even if tomorrow open models skyrocketed ahead, 10xed in capabilities vs the entire closed frontier, the outcome would be.... extreme increase in concentration of power states and other large entities with huge existing resource access would be in a much better position to *run* massively more instances of said open models, to *utilize* their capabilities/act on their recommendations or experiments, and to continue building future more intelligent models using them destabilization caused by individuals or smaller groups or just ossification of states could cause some collapse! but that just looks very temporary to me, and not even particularly likely for current superpowers and it's clearly a strong convergent instrumental goal for any such newly highly empowered state to... prevent destabilization, to crush or neuter the ways individuals or external states can use these models i can sympathize with the deepseek engineer's plight. but the outcome he seeks, whether or not he knows it, *still ends in massive concentration of power*, just ... with extra steps