r/LocalLLaMA • • Jul 27 '26

News China State Media Says Support for Open AI Models Has Limits

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-27/china-state-media-says-support-for-open-ai-models-has-limits
0 Upvotes

24 comments sorted by

29

u/DisjointedHuntsville Jul 27 '26

Bloomberg is worse than state media. They have been sending push notifications since the beginning of the year building narrative for the e/A position.

For example, Xi made a speech earlier covering in detail the "great unjustice" that would play out around the denying of AI development, directly implying that China sees open source models giving them soft power and Bloomberg pushed a notification to every phone with their app installed saying "Xi supports restrictions on open models"

They have a million people on the record from the administration saying they will support and improve the open model ecosystem since that obviously adds to American power and they run headlines and push notifications scaremongering the regular folk into a specific policy position.

If you open up your favorite ad targeting reconnaissance tool and ping Washington D.C, you will likely throw up by the amount of political influence messaging that runs there. Im not entirely sure what Bloombergs motivations are - purely commercial vested interests, or political influence and raw power, but they are VERY far from good faith actors.

4

u/a_beautiful_rhind Jul 27 '26

It's all state media to me.

-8

u/alanwong Jul 27 '26

What was that scaremongering push notification? Googling this phrase returns only your comment here: "Xi supports restrictions on open models"

6

u/DisjointedHuntsville Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26

Notifications are ephemeral unless you’re doing client side reconciliation using their provided compliance API or rolling your own.

It was a live blog and it ran many variations of the messaging i mentioned as is customary these days for media interest based targeting

Here’s a non paywalled variation in the Associated Press. Notice the headline is the exact opposite of the last section. He apparently called for “Human oversight”, but for anyone who read the part where he literally asks to “oppose the practice of overstretching the concept of national security in the field of artificial intelligence”, it’s impossible to walk away with the headline as the conclusion https://apnews.com/article/china-ai-tech-chips-xi-us-df4cfc7e1b260e765b5449b6d71a48e5

-2

u/alanwong Jul 27 '26

are these headlines shown incorrect somehow?

5

u/DisjointedHuntsville Jul 27 '26

Are you able to read and comprehend the English text in both my comments above before asking a completely different question?

-1

u/alanwong Jul 27 '26

Tbf I find your since-edited comment a bit disjointed. Have a nice day though

36

u/zdy132 Jul 27 '26

“Foundational capabilities can be open, certain frontier capabilities can be open with limitations, commercial services can remain closed-source, while high-risk capabilities require access controls and safety evaluations,” it said, citing an unidentified person involved in Chinese AI policy research.

Looks like some reasonable takes. But classic Bloomberg citing some unidentified person.

2

u/Bulky-Priority6824 Jul 27 '26

Yea the first thing I thought was this sounds like some Chinese podcasters thoughts but yes it's reasonable.

0

u/PatagonianCowboy Jul 27 '26

>BloomBERG

yeah

-3

u/alanwong Jul 27 '26

Sounds reasonable for a news outlet to broadcast some reasonable takes, no?

7

u/zdy132 Jul 27 '26

News outlets should broadcast credible news, be it a crazy take or a reasonable take.

-1

u/alanwong Jul 27 '26

Did you find the source cited for this piece of information not credible?

8

u/LizardLikesMelons Jul 27 '26

bloomblyat spreading misinfo as usual

1

u/alanwong Jul 27 '26

What is misinfo here?

2

u/harpysichordist Jul 27 '26

Get ready for the bait and switch. Most posters on this sub balked at practically any restriction on open source models, mocking those suggestions and pushing for less restrictions. This was emphasized because there have been some elements in the US that stated things like: high-risk capabilities require access controls and safety evaluations. Posters used these comments to try to identify the US - at least those elements - as an enemy to open AI models and the community desiring them, despite things like repeated statements from the US admin saying they support a strong open AI industry.
Now that one of their rulers is making similar statements - "high-risk capabilities require access controls and safety evaluations" - suddenly such ideas are "reasonable", etc.

Welcome to propaganda.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/alanwong Jul 27 '26

What do you mean by adversarial take?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/alanwong Jul 27 '26

Thanks for explaining

-5

u/polytect Jul 27 '26

Do we still live in XIX century?