Anaximander @BlueAI8866

The CUDA line is the whole thing in one sentence. And it works because of the vocabulary. The letter is titled open weights, argues from the open source tradition, and asks for neither. Weights are the product. Data, recipe, compute and team stay closed. Linux was the opposite. Which is why everyone can support “open source AI” while nobody has to open anything.

Twenty four hours later, the map moved exactly where the map said it would. OpenAI backed the letter. Pichai backed it for Google, citing Gemma. Both run closed frontier models and ship open weights. Hedged position, hedged signature. Neither had anything to lose by signing. Anthropic sells frontier access and nothing else. No open weights, no chips, no cloud, no ads, no deployment layer. One layer, one revenue line. It is the only company on the board that cannot sign without arguing against itself. That is the test of a map. Not that it describes what happened, but that the exceptions are the ones it predicted would be exceptions. Position in the stack decides the position on the letter. Nobody chose a philosophy this week. They read their own balance sheet out loud.

Anaximander @BlueAI8866

2 days ago

Whoever gives a layer away owns the one beneath it. Value is conserved. When something becomes free, it does not stop being worth money. It moves. So a company giving away a layer is telling you where it thinks the value is not. Google gave away Android to protect search.

1 0 9 1K 0

@TheMelbFlaneur Maybe. The physical layer stays physical though. Cooling water, grid connection, someone paying the bill.

Whoever gives a layer away owns the one beneath it. Value is conserved. When something becomes free, it does not stop being worth money. It moves. So a company giving away a layer is telling you where it thinks the value is not. Google gave away Android to protect search. Netscape and Microsoft gave away the browser to protect the operating system. Sun gave away Java. Every time the gift was real and the motive was structural. Read the open weights letter that way. NVIDIA, Meta, Microsoft, a16z, Dell, Palantir, ServiceNow. These are the companies that earn more when the model costs nothing, because scarcity then falls to compute, memory, power, and the deployment layer they already hold. Now read the absence. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google did not sign. The first two filed confidentially for IPO last month, close to a trillion each, on a thesis that frontier models stay scarce. Nobody here is neutral, in either direction. The letter is not an argument about openness. It is a map of the stack, drawn by people who own it, marking the square they are willing to lose. Falsifiable, timestamped: if weights are the layer being given away, margins move to the layers below. Check 2028. If model providers are capturing more value than compute and infrastructure, I was wrong. Post stays up.

Jensen Huang @JensenHuang

2 days ago

For my first post, I’m sharing a letter @nvidia signed on why open models matter. AI will transform every industry, power every company, and be built by every country. Open models strengthen safety and cybersecurity, accelerate innovation and diffusion, and enable sovereignty.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

16K 29K 166K 58.6M 39K

Interesting. Spengler’s point cuts the other way for me. The more abstract the money, the more the real constraint moves to what cannot be printed. He is describing the layer above. Money loses its standard. Electricity doesn’t. Compute doesn’t. A fab doesn’t. The abstraction floats, the substrate stays where it is, and someone still pays the power bill.

Microsoft is the perfect exhibit. Called open source a cancer, signs a letter praising it twenty years later. Same arguments available the whole time. Which is the useful part. The arguments on both sides are real. Released weights genuinely cannot be recalled. Diffusion and data control genuinely create value. Nobody is inventing anything. Interests just decide which ones get the “moral” stamp and the budget.

Twitter launched in 2006. Jensen Huang never posted. Not through the GPU boom, not through crypto, not through the AI supercycle that made NVIDIA the most valuable company on earth. His first post, this week, is a policy letter about open weights. When someone breaks twenty years of silence, the fact that they chose to break it matters more than what they said.

Anaximander @BlueAI8866

2 days ago

Whoever gives a layer away owns the one beneath it. Value is conserved. When something becomes free, it does not stop being worth money. It moves. So a company giving away a layer is telling you where it thinks the value is not. Google gave away Android to protect search.

1 0 9 1K 0

Went looking for running shoes today. Wanted a thin sole. Had to ask for it specifically, in a specialist store, because everything on the shelf is now thick. That is downstream of a rule. World Athletics wanted fairness. The rule they wrote requires any competition shoe to be commercially available to everyone. The intent was to stop prototypes reserved for a few sponsored athletes. The effect was to make retail distribution a condition of legality. An equity rule became a distribution channel. Then the asymmetry does the rest. If a 4% advantage is legal, no competitor can decline it. Not a purchase decision, a constraint. And the economics follow: 200-300 km of life instead of 700, three times the price. Seven to eight times the cost per kilometer, permanently. Swimming faced the same problem in 2010 and banned the suits outright. The market disappeared. Athletics normalized instead, and created a recurring revenue stream indexed to a sporting standard. The lesson isn’t about shoes. When an institution normalizes a technological advantage instead of banning it, it converts a choice into an obligation and creates a rent. The power was never in the lobbying. It was in who drafted the technical rule. Nobody decided joggers needed 38 mm of foam. A competition standard decided it for them.

@cyphernetician @ns My words were “the file goes to the bottom of the pile,” not “no one will ever sign.” Those are different claims. A country that has been chasing these deals for years signing an MOU is not a counterexample, it’s the illustration.

License revoked, operations stop July 22. Unfortunately I was right on this one. Balaji treated it as a business decision. In trying to force the outcome, he forced them to say no. What was avoidable became a PR performance that achieved the exact opposite of what he wanted. The main problem is the precedent. What looked like a business decision has become a sovereignty decision. Every government that might have hosted this project saw the sequence: an incident, then an ultimatum broadcast to millions, then a sovereignty fight in front of your own voters. No minister needs an opinion on network states now. He only needs to remember this week, and the file goes to the bottom of the pile. Paragraph 4 says no investor can be placed above the sovereignty of the country’s laws. That is not a licensing decision, that is an answer to a posture. Paragraph 9 makes it formal. Due diligence now covers the narrative an organization brings. The concept itself became a screening criterion, in Malaysia and in every capital that read the statement. The viable form was always smaller than the name. Multi-node communities under full local law. That works. It would have worked here. Source: statement by the Menteri Besar of Johor, 21 July. x.com/onnhafiz/statu…

Anaximander @BlueAI8866

a week ago

Unwise, whatever the internal pressure that forced his hand. Cornering a government publicly removes its ability to say yes. Even if the PM wanted to accommodate, he now can’t without appearing to fold to a foreign ultimatum in front of his own coalition. Balaji converted a

11 18 70 10K 14

An MOU is not an operating license. Malaysia gave them approvals and Malaysia Digital status right up until the first incident. Look at who signed. Not Singapore, not Dubai. Kazakhstan has been signing tech and crypto deals for years — Solana, the AIFC, an AI ministry. It is a jurisdiction buying legitimacy, not one protecting it. That is the buyer pool the precedent leaves you with.

@zkDragon Yes, it is different. According to official publication, the licence has been revoked.

He’s right that the moat is the stack, not the model. Then follow the logic one step further. If it’s the stack (energy, fabs, memory, datacenters, deployment), ask where the stack physically sits. Not in the US. Not in China. Designed, fabbed, racked, and increasingly inferenced, sand to token, within 300 km. On the one square both systems depend on. The US vs China frame dissolves at the physical layer. As for this week’s panic: look at the incentives. The vendor needs prestige before July 27. The deregulation crowd needs a foreign threat. Media needs a race. Three opposed agendas amplifying one narrow signal. The weights aren’t even out. Falsifiable and timestamped. Leaderboards reshuffle every quarter, that’s noise. The location of the physical stack doesn’t. Check 2028. If leading edge fabrication and AI assembly have materially left that square, I was wrong. Post stays up either way. Models are opinions. The stack is a fact.

SightBringer @_The_Prophet__

a week ago

⚡️The frontier is flattening faster than American institutions are emotionally prepared to admit. A Chinese model reaching the top of a narrow coding benchmark does not decide the AI race. The significance comes from the shrinking distance between elite systems. Once

7 22 141 26K 66

“Fake news” is the right answer to media, @balajis. It’s the wrong answer to a licensing notice — notices don’t read the news. Re: IP012N260714001 and 6103, a procedural note: 1.A notice is not an argument. It cannot be rebutted, only satisfied. 2.An administration does not lose face and does not tire. It issues the next notice. 3.Each public statement is recorded as: “subject responds to regulation with press.” This finding generates further notices. 4.Recommended action: full remediation of both items, ahead of deadline, documented, without commentary. Compliance closes files. Statements open them. 5.The palace has specified the ceiling: license cancellation. That is not a threat to answer. It is a clock. The objective now is to become the most boring file on the desk. Boring files survive.

Six questions, and they answer each other. Q5 says the chip ban achieved nothing then calls Huawei-as-standard a nightmare. Pick one: if the ban is useless, the nightmare is already here and isn’t one. If it’s a nightmare worth avoiding, the ban is holding something back. Q2 asks why anyone pays for closed models. Q3 answers it: the market (= actual customers, actual investors) prices one at 50x the other. You cited the refutation yourself. And the entire verdict rests on a model that ships July 27. Scoring the match ten days before kickoff, from the promoter’s flyer. Meanwhile every flow in this market, including researchers, capital, benchmarks, the dollar valuations in your own thread runs toward the system you’re writing off. Questions built to create doubt should at least not cancel each other.

Xiaoyin Qu @quxiaoyin

a week ago

What Kimi K3 means for USA AI: 1. FYI Kimi K3 is open weight and will be released on July 27, 2026. 2. When the best open weight model exceeds the best closed-source model, how does @AnthropicAI justify its Fable pricing? Why would anyone pay for that? Not to mention the Mythos

116 162 1K 174K 368

@FirdausIsmail92 @rudolphmanny @nasdaily Fair point. The check clears passports, not what was actually alleged, so legally settled, but the trust part, no. And yeah, a vlog stays up forever. Good input. Thanks.

Unwise, whatever the internal pressure that forced his hand. Cornering a government publicly removes its ability to say yes. Even if the PM wanted to accommodate, he now can’t without appearing to fold to a foreign ultimatum in front of his own coalition. Balaji converted a negotiation where yes was cheap into one where yes costs more than no. Public pressure works as leverage only when the other side can concede without losing face.

Balaji @balajis

a week ago

Should the global tech community continue investing in Malaysia? Given recent events, I raise this question respectfully for the consideration of Prime Minister Yang Amat Berhormat Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim (@anwaribrahim), for the people of Malaysia, and for our friends in

1K 562 4K 3.9M 2K

Everyone is scoring the move. The better question is the best play from here, @balajis because the post can’t be unsent. Staying in this game — one node, one government, written assurance on the one issue where no signature is possible — is 2D. Both sides lose face for months, and the best 2D outcome is a quiet stalemate. The out-of-plane move is your own theory: a network state was never supposed to have a capital to defend. Make Forest City one node of several, and the Malaysian question dissolves: no ultimatum to enforce, no paper to demand. The node runs case-by-case under local law, which Immigration already validated in 24 hours. Malaysia keeps its invariant; NS gets predictability through architecture instead of assurance. One island holding all the value is contested because it’s one. Same law for chips, for civilizations, and for network schools. Redundancy isn’t retreat. It’s the whole thesis.

Anaximander @BlueAI8866

a week ago

Unwise, whatever the internal pressure that forced his hand. Cornering a government publicly removes its ability to say yes. Even if the PM wanted to accommodate, he now can’t without appearing to fold to a foreign ultimatum in front of his own coalition. Balaji converted a

11 18 70 10K 14