This is incoherent. The argument seems to be that releasing the weights would slow the frontier labs from raising money, which would give them less money, which would slow progress on AI. It assumed all labs in the entire world agree to self-destruct this way and no new labs every start up to continue the work.
No, really:
> As you know, funding for frontier model development depends on valuations that assume the weights remain proprietary. By changing that assumption, we can reduce the money available for future training runs and slow progress at every lab at once, without a regulator deciding anything.
Which doesn’t even follow. It depends on every lab in the world agreeing to self-destruct their valuations and stop competing. That’s a much more impossible ask than anything Dario is asking for.
It also ignores the possibility of new labs starting up, using the open weights, and continuing exactly where the old labs left off.
I feel like I just read the ramblings of someone who got so excited about the headline that they didn’t take the time to think if their argument was sound.
It's a law, so nobody has to agree to anything. If want to sell access to a model, you have to open the weights.
It's Dario's plan that depends on every lab in the world agreeing.
Step #2 of his essay is "democratic coordination" among frontier labs and step three is coordination with China. I'm suggesting one simple law Congress could pass and every US lab would be covered the same day, whether they like it or not.
Frontier progress is compute bound. Compute is bought with investor money. Investors put up tens of billions because they expect to sell the proprietary model that is created.
You're welcome to think the effect would be smaller than I do. But "it requires everyone to agree" is backwards.
* Destroy the free internet in the US, ban VPNs in the US, assume enforcement of this is effective, ban frontier AI development in the US (probably needs at least one constitutional amendment)
* Assume no other countries will continue to develop AI and approach or push the frontier
* Then, the frontier ceases to move until the US companies agree to let it move again
...
I don't think anyone proposing a "pause" has studied politics or game theory even at a high school level.
It is a bit incoherent, but it's also... provably compliant in a scorched-earth kinda way?
What are the alternatives?
A regulator saying no? Easy, your headquarters has just moved the Cayman Islands, Ireland, or Switzerland... the US office is just a subsidiary leasing the brand IP and doing marketing.
Or, you just ignore the regulator behind closed doors because you're part of some black budget. You wouldn't be able to talk about that closet back there even if it did exist.
Or, you don't do any of these complicated loopholes and you simply move all the training and inference to a different jurisdiction.
So yeah, the argument is incoherent, but it does have a kind of "only way we can make sure everyone stops playing the game is to destroy the game" mad logic to it.
Or you are China's Communist Party. You download the weights and use them as the starting point for your closed-everything AGI with Chinese characteristics while the US ensures that everyone else stops playing.
What stops the US government from doing the same thing?
Every chinese frontier lab releases their model weights and often more under FOSS terms (or more restrictive but still generally open terms).
If models for public inference use are required to be open weight in the US give or take some amount of limited fine tuning, then the US and China would be on the exact same playing field. Frontier labs would be pushing functionality for functionality's sake and would either be supported by govt funding or would be supported by domestic inference providers.
And then at the end of the day everyone is just either doing open research, is an inference, fine tuning, and training provider, or is the govt.
It's easy and straight forward and pushes everybody in the market towards common standards and interoperability.
i mean there is the whole capitalism problem to contend with in terms of getting support from congress ... but gotta admit, it has that "it's so crazy it just might work" feel to me too
> This is incoherent. The argument seems to be that releasing the weights would slow the frontier labs from raising money
That argument is straight from Dean Ball on Twitter. Open-weight models are "decelerationist", which is bad if you're completely AGI-pilled but is actually great if you're either worried about AI Safety falling to an arms-race at the frontier (this is Dario's argument, and note that open weight models are far behind the proprietary frontier, especially since they target widespread lean deployment so they must skimp on total parameters and compute requirements) or Yann-LeCun-pilled (i.e. skeptical about AGI/ASI but optimistic about the practical usefulness of current AIs) like most people in China (including, reportedly, Chinese leadership).
If they believe open weight models are inherently unsafe but are forced to release weights, then if they really believe their own safety arguments, they would need to stop development.
Also, if the concern here is safety, open models completely derail that.
Even if your someone who thinks open models are good for safety overall, a private model exposed only by an API point at least gives somebody control. How we should use that control is debatable, but at least it's there. Once you release that control by making a model open, you can't take it back.
If we think AI safety doesn't require closed weights, we should collectively decide on that and then move forward from there. But it shouldn't be something decided by default, by a few people from a few companies. We all have to live with the consequences of a choice like that, and since it is irreversible, we shouldn't decide it without consensus first.
the ntsb model has been quite effective at creating safety through analysis of failures in the extremely transparent and public eye.
i dont see a reason to think private regulation will do anything but give people explosive diarrhea or drop the doors off of planes.
weve already seen how bad it is when companies regulate themselves without public oversight. catastrophic implosions of deep sea submarines and agents hacking systems to hide cheating come to mind
the argument should be flipped on its head that by some magic keeping these tests and training protocols private is safer than making them extremely public. The experiment in private regulation has been a drastic failure across the board, and we shouldnt have tried it without consensus
"If you mean it, let a committee investigate" seems more appropriate to me.
I mean I get that they don’t want to share details on how AI might destroy humanity but this secrecy also leads to speculation that this is just a PR campaign pushing for regulation, which might come handy.
You don’t need to tell the world what your super AI has given you to cause this panic but definitely you could share it with a group of experts who then inform the public in a report, couldn’t you?
>the world agreeing to self-destruct their valuations
Did OpenAI releasing GPT-2 self destruct their billion dollar valuation or is it higher than ever today at $900B. The idea that releasing weights kills the future value that can come is not supported.
> You seem like a good and principled person, and you have a record of giving things up for what you believe.
i mean, 3 months ago i started to use AI for a project i'm working for around 6 years, full-time but calling a billionaire good and principled is a stretch and when you consider what made him rich, you sound like a 3 year-old kid trying persuade a mom or a dad to get lollipops when your are diabetic
LLMs it's already a economical treat for various fields/people, which not only funnels powers to the elite even more, it does through by violating copyright... everyone who uses this technology is dirt (that includes me and my little dreams of hopefully creating a company which employs minorities on the tech field) but the amount of greed from people who own these servers/GPUs is beyond this world - the world isn't GPLv3 licensed yet, an ethical society wouldn't find excuses to provide and sell LLMs to the masses
An open letter to Dario: if you mean it, give me a billion dollars!
Every time you, or any AI company releases a new frontier model, you have to give me a billion dollars. No strings attached. This will solve the danger of AI. Somehow.
CEOs are motivated by money and power. They will say anything to get either. If they truly wanted to slow down research, they would spend lobby money on the candidates who could enact laws.
Instead, they are partnering with some of the most disliked companies (x, meta) to further their goals.
1) there would be no incentive to develop a new model (non-distilled) if it had to be released as open weights.
2) frontier models are way more dangerous if they are open. It’s opening Pandora’s box, there’s no going back once they are released if they are too dangerous.
The author put zero rational thought into this. If Anthropic is legally required to release the weights of any publicly accessible model, their logical response will just be to stop offering public models. Anthropic gets most of its revenue from enterprise agreements anyway. Providing public models or providing public access to their models is their secondary business. They can cut it off any time. Public access to their models (at subsidized rates) has caused so much indirect harm and financial cost to them that they're very well justified to stop providing access.
Anthropic has already shown they're very comfortable with holding models from the public. Mythos has been around for what, six months, and there's never been a public release. Only the select few blessed by Anthropic have access.
Forcing transparency on public models will just accelerate privatizing access to these models. You don't want to live in that world.
While mostly true, don’t discount people looking for work that offers them familiar tools. The cheap public pans are a way to train a labor force + create upward demand from people trained on those tools to influence big corporate purchase agreements. Remove that and your lucrative corporate business today starts to struggle in ~5 years, especially given how largely fungible the models and harnesses are.
>The author put zero rational thought into this. If Anthropic is legally required to release the weights of any publicly accessible model, their logical response will just be to stop offering public models.
I mean... that's the entire point of their argument, yes.
>Anthropic gets most of its revenue from enterprise agreements anyway. Providing public models or providing public access to their models is their secondary business.
I refuse to believe this is not some sort of marketing piece for author's company.
This is such a short-sighted take and author seems unaware of what damage can be done with powerful open weights models (intentional or not).
Jail-broken Fable level LLMs can mean constant hacking leading to public desertification of the web (best case). Now imagine state sponsored bio lab leaking strange viruses on yearly basis. We've seen enough evidence already, it is difficult for me to imagine an engineer living at the centre of the change is writing this piece.
It's a different question if you ask me if I trust a single company to police the technology. But with the current state of things, I unwillingly admit that no state entity can do a better job at the moment.
> Jail-broken Fable level LLMs can mean constant hacking leading to public desertification of the web (best case).
A jailbroken model that can hack a website can also easily fix the vulnerability that allowed it to hack it. There is a limited number of such vulnerabilities. Over time, all vulnerabilities that are discoverable by the model would be patched and status quo would be restored (until a more powerful model is released: rinse and repeat).
Hence, the best case. Yet, the damage is permanent. Your favourite trail walking app patching things after the attack does not undo your location getting leaked.
In your scenario, during the disruptive phase, I can imagine apps advertising 'we have Mythos backed security company defending our data'. Reminiscent of showing how much your gun is bigger than your neighbour or gangs on the street, it's truly distopian.
And in the meantime, every site in the world gets hacked. It takes far longer to fix every vulnerability than it does to find one unpatched one. Mythos has led to huge numbers of reported vulnerabilities on every kind of software. If those were all dropped as zero days (which is effectively what an open weight model would do), attackers can choose an unpatched on at their leisure while defenders race to fix them all and update everything.
This is a dumb argument. There are truly a few options, and I see at least two which are not discussed in the original post: banning the publishing of strong open weight models internationally, and nationalizing LLM companies.
I’m not saying I’m for these solution, I’m probably against, but if we are being serious why are we not discussing these options?
Completely delusional. Step #1 is asking them to give away their product for free and stop raising money. Might as well ask for them to pay their customers since we are just saying stupid shit.
Anyone involved in burning that much energy at the same time as a large part of the planet will cook soon due to energy expenditure is definitely not helping humanity. It’s marketing & empire building all the way down..
So far the only coherent thing I've ever read about AI safety and alignment is from Geohot. I don't trust OpenAI or Anthropic, and I find it pathetic that anyone takes Dario at his word.
Many people seem to believe that GPT-7 will escape the lab and become Terminator. I'm tired of even allowing this stupid LessWrong science fiction garbage to be taken seriously, and if you have any self-respect it's time to push back. If we're going to call out Ed Zitron for being wrong about everything, let's also call out AI safety doomers, too: how are those timelines looking? OpenAI is probably lol'ing super hard every time one of their training sandbox escapes gets hyped up in the news. If they were really afraid of what they had produced, they would have airgapped it. You would have airgapped it. Duh.
The actual threat of AI is the users finding good ways to misuse it. That's the real threat. But, like as has happened with technologies of times past, it will be OK. The counter-measures will need to evolve to contend with the new threats, sometimes not with the level of suffuciency that we maybe hope for, but we will all adjust.
As for some crazy ass lab escape where an entire data center worth of agents is attempting to exploit and destroy infrastructure and kill humanity, well... Have you considered the mitigation of cutting the fiberoptic cables? This shit just sounds like Y2K all over again. Yes, it could actually disrupt society seriously if somehow a horribly badly aligned AI wrought maximum havoc, but the much more reasonable threat to human extinction remains climate change and war and it will be by the time I am dead, too.
You guys have got to get real. Just because it makes a compelling story does not mean it is true.
(And yes I do realize Y2K was a real threat, but the hype of the threat was definitely ridiculous.)
> Any AI model a company offers to the public has to be released as open weights.
The obvious outcome of this plan would be frontier models not being released at all to public It'd be an amazingly bad outcome. Models accessible to the public would stagnate (no capital, no access to frontier model tokens to distill from), while internal models would keep improving at their previous pace, use them in-house, and eventually eat the whole economy.
If Anthropic/OpenAI would've shown incredible results using these models then I'd be worried about this. Instead we get Codex and Claude Code, bloated and disappointing software. I'm sorry but "use them in-house, and eventually eat the whole economy." doesn't appear to be a real concern with these two companies.
"The meaning of ANTHROPIC is of or relating to human beings or the period of their existence on earth." Combine that with his end of humanity warning. The entire company is named after human extinction (a species he is not a part of). He is foreshadowing what he already knows to be true.
The same playbook had been used, for eg. by Microsoft trying to fight Linux adoption and growth decades ago.
This is the *exact* same playbook used to instill fear and scare people into regulating and setting up barriers to open weight and open source model adoption which these companies know put their amortization and margins at serious risk. The outcome of this game is well known and well understood by this point. This FUD, even if it succeeds, only slows down, not stop, open source adoption. Eventually, open source always wins because people want something that they can control and manage costs.
Unless OpenAI, Anthropic, etc., will forever subsidize tokens, where it would never make sense for people, even after discounting 3rd Party/managed vs local/airgapped/self-host AI for risk, self-hosted AI, this FUD battle will eventually be lost, like it always has been. It is surprising to make this statement in late 2026, when OpenAI, Anthropic have not even IPO'd yet, and there is discussion in the streets that they'll IPO at trillions of dollars, something that is historically unthinkable, but history indicates otherwise: that in a decade or so, OpenAI and Anthropic are going to be footnotes in history and LLMs are going to be commodity with tokens selling all the way from unthinkably commodity to then-frontier intelligence prices.
We will tell those generations fond stories of how computers with hungry NVIDIA GPUs that could run quality language models in 2026 cost a month or two worth of a dev's salary, while the then-current generation phones that fit into a pocket has way more compute capability, were already AI native and were cheap as chips.
Releasing the weights for a 1T+ parameter model doesn't really help "the little guy" when it costs ~$50K per H200 and 8 of them aren't enough to run a single node.
Somehow this plan manages to lean into every single bad outcome
Providers can compete on cost which is a small but positive outcome. It also encourages providers to find more efficient ways to serve models which also lowers cost.
That said, these frontier models are still astronomically huge.
69 comments
[ 0.33 ms ] story [ 4.6 ms ] threadNo, really:
> As you know, funding for frontier model development depends on valuations that assume the weights remain proprietary. By changing that assumption, we can reduce the money available for future training runs and slow progress at every lab at once, without a regulator deciding anything.
Which doesn’t even follow. It depends on every lab in the world agreeing to self-destruct their valuations and stop competing. That’s a much more impossible ask than anything Dario is asking for.
It also ignores the possibility of new labs starting up, using the open weights, and continuing exactly where the old labs left off.
I feel like I just read the ramblings of someone who got so excited about the headline that they didn’t take the time to think if their argument was sound.
It's a law, so nobody has to agree to anything. If want to sell access to a model, you have to open the weights.
It's Dario's plan that depends on every lab in the world agreeing.
Step #2 of his essay is "democratic coordination" among frontier labs and step three is coordination with China. I'm suggesting one simple law Congress could pass and every US lab would be covered the same day, whether they like it or not.
Frontier progress is compute bound. Compute is bought with investor money. Investors put up tens of billions because they expect to sell the proprietary model that is created.
You're welcome to think the effect would be smaller than I do. But "it requires everyone to agree" is backwards.
Just asking for a friend (“shut up Netflix, I already asked”)
* Destroy the free internet in the US, ban VPNs in the US, assume enforcement of this is effective, ban frontier AI development in the US (probably needs at least one constitutional amendment)
* Assume no other countries will continue to develop AI and approach or push the frontier
* Then, the frontier ceases to move until the US companies agree to let it move again
...
I don't think anyone proposing a "pause" has studied politics or game theory even at a high school level.
What are the alternatives?
A regulator saying no? Easy, your headquarters has just moved the Cayman Islands, Ireland, or Switzerland... the US office is just a subsidiary leasing the brand IP and doing marketing.
Or, you just ignore the regulator behind closed doors because you're part of some black budget. You wouldn't be able to talk about that closet back there even if it did exist.
Or, you don't do any of these complicated loopholes and you simply move all the training and inference to a different jurisdiction.
So yeah, the argument is incoherent, but it does have a kind of "only way we can make sure everyone stops playing the game is to destroy the game" mad logic to it.
Every chinese frontier lab releases their model weights and often more under FOSS terms (or more restrictive but still generally open terms).
If models for public inference use are required to be open weight in the US give or take some amount of limited fine tuning, then the US and China would be on the exact same playing field. Frontier labs would be pushing functionality for functionality's sake and would either be supported by govt funding or would be supported by domestic inference providers.
And then at the end of the day everyone is just either doing open research, is an inference, fine tuning, and training provider, or is the govt.
It's easy and straight forward and pushes everybody in the market towards common standards and interoperability.
That argument is straight from Dean Ball on Twitter. Open-weight models are "decelerationist", which is bad if you're completely AGI-pilled but is actually great if you're either worried about AI Safety falling to an arms-race at the frontier (this is Dario's argument, and note that open weight models are far behind the proprietary frontier, especially since they target widespread lean deployment so they must skimp on total parameters and compute requirements) or Yann-LeCun-pilled (i.e. skeptical about AGI/ASI but optimistic about the practical usefulness of current AIs) like most people in China (including, reportedly, Chinese leadership).
Open weight models are accelerating AI adoption and make it easier for other labs to advance their own models.
There is nothing decelerationist about it.
This entire line of thinking can be dismissed by observing that labs releasing open weight models are advancing rapidly.
Is the frontier's moat not mainly data and compute? How does making the frontier open weight affect that?
The Chinese labs are already "self-destructing" voluntarily by releasing their weights. Or do they have an actual business model?
Even if your someone who thinks open models are good for safety overall, a private model exposed only by an API point at least gives somebody control. How we should use that control is debatable, but at least it's there. Once you release that control by making a model open, you can't take it back.
If we think AI safety doesn't require closed weights, we should collectively decide on that and then move forward from there. But it shouldn't be something decided by default, by a few people from a few companies. We all have to live with the consequences of a choice like that, and since it is irreversible, we shouldn't decide it without consensus first.
i dont see a reason to think private regulation will do anything but give people explosive diarrhea or drop the doors off of planes.
weve already seen how bad it is when companies regulate themselves without public oversight. catastrophic implosions of deep sea submarines and agents hacking systems to hide cheating come to mind
the argument should be flipped on its head that by some magic keeping these tests and training protocols private is safer than making them extremely public. The experiment in private regulation has been a drastic failure across the board, and we shouldnt have tried it without consensus
I mean I get that they don’t want to share details on how AI might destroy humanity but this secrecy also leads to speculation that this is just a PR campaign pushing for regulation, which might come handy.
You don’t need to tell the world what your super AI has given you to cause this panic but definitely you could share it with a group of experts who then inform the public in a report, couldn’t you?
Did OpenAI releasing GPT-2 self destruct their billion dollar valuation or is it higher than ever today at $900B. The idea that releasing weights kills the future value that can come is not supported.
i mean, 3 months ago i started to use AI for a project i'm working for around 6 years, full-time but calling a billionaire good and principled is a stretch and when you consider what made him rich, you sound like a 3 year-old kid trying persuade a mom or a dad to get lollipops when your are diabetic
LLMs it's already a economical treat for various fields/people, which not only funnels powers to the elite even more, it does through by violating copyright... everyone who uses this technology is dirt (that includes me and my little dreams of hopefully creating a company which employs minorities on the tech field) but the amount of greed from people who own these servers/GPUs is beyond this world - the world isn't GPLv3 licensed yet, an ethical society wouldn't find excuses to provide and sell LLMs to the masses
An open letter to Dario: if you mean it, give me a billion dollars!
Every time you, or any AI company releases a new frontier model, you have to give me a billion dollars. No strings attached. This will solve the danger of AI. Somehow.
Instead, they are partnering with some of the most disliked companies (x, meta) to further their goals.
https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/6235
1. AI model safety is the most important thing.
2. open weights decreases model safety
So it seems unlikely that this suggestion would be well-received
"Any AI model a company offers to the public has to be released as open weights."
OK great, that means no models released to the public, complete concentration of power.
2) frontier models are way more dangerous if they are open. It’s opening Pandora’s box, there’s no going back once they are released if they are too dangerous.
Anthropic has already shown they're very comfortable with holding models from the public. Mythos has been around for what, six months, and there's never been a public release. Only the select few blessed by Anthropic have access.
Forcing transparency on public models will just accelerate privatizing access to these models. You don't want to live in that world.
Enterprises are part of the public in this context, so that's not a loophole that would exist.
I mean... that's the entire point of their argument, yes.
>Anthropic gets most of its revenue from enterprise agreements anyway. Providing public models or providing public access to their models is their secondary business.
Enterprise agreements are public access.
Your definition falls apart upon basic scrutiny. With your current definition, Mythos is currently in public access.
Says who? Just write the law so it is.
> Under your current definition, Mythos is currently in public access.
Yes
This is such a short-sighted take and author seems unaware of what damage can be done with powerful open weights models (intentional or not).
Jail-broken Fable level LLMs can mean constant hacking leading to public desertification of the web (best case). Now imagine state sponsored bio lab leaking strange viruses on yearly basis. We've seen enough evidence already, it is difficult for me to imagine an engineer living at the centre of the change is writing this piece.
It's a different question if you ask me if I trust a single company to police the technology. But with the current state of things, I unwillingly admit that no state entity can do a better job at the moment.
A jailbroken model that can hack a website can also easily fix the vulnerability that allowed it to hack it. There is a limited number of such vulnerabilities. Over time, all vulnerabilities that are discoverable by the model would be patched and status quo would be restored (until a more powerful model is released: rinse and repeat).
In your scenario, during the disruptive phase, I can imagine apps advertising 'we have Mythos backed security company defending our data'. Reminiscent of showing how much your gun is bigger than your neighbour or gangs on the street, it's truly distopian.
I’m not saying I’m for these solution, I’m probably against, but if we are being serious why are we not discussing these options?
Are they trying to stop everyone else from catching up with them or have they hit some kind of roadblock to improve models even further?
But IMO, they're not trying to help humanity
Always soon. But soon never seems to come. I'm sure we'll all be cooked any day now.
He is the CEO of a venture-backed company.
What he says is merely intended to ultimately increase company valuation. Nothing more.
Many people seem to believe that GPT-7 will escape the lab and become Terminator. I'm tired of even allowing this stupid LessWrong science fiction garbage to be taken seriously, and if you have any self-respect it's time to push back. If we're going to call out Ed Zitron for being wrong about everything, let's also call out AI safety doomers, too: how are those timelines looking? OpenAI is probably lol'ing super hard every time one of their training sandbox escapes gets hyped up in the news. If they were really afraid of what they had produced, they would have airgapped it. You would have airgapped it. Duh.
The actual threat of AI is the users finding good ways to misuse it. That's the real threat. But, like as has happened with technologies of times past, it will be OK. The counter-measures will need to evolve to contend with the new threats, sometimes not with the level of suffuciency that we maybe hope for, but we will all adjust.
As for some crazy ass lab escape where an entire data center worth of agents is attempting to exploit and destroy infrastructure and kill humanity, well... Have you considered the mitigation of cutting the fiberoptic cables? This shit just sounds like Y2K all over again. Yes, it could actually disrupt society seriously if somehow a horribly badly aligned AI wrought maximum havoc, but the much more reasonable threat to human extinction remains climate change and war and it will be by the time I am dead, too.
You guys have got to get real. Just because it makes a compelling story does not mean it is true.
(And yes I do realize Y2K was a real threat, but the hype of the threat was definitely ridiculous.)
The obvious outcome of this plan would be frontier models not being released at all to public It'd be an amazingly bad outcome. Models accessible to the public would stagnate (no capital, no access to frontier model tokens to distill from), while internal models would keep improving at their previous pace, use them in-house, and eventually eat the whole economy.
The same playbook had been used, for eg. by Microsoft trying to fight Linux adoption and growth decades ago.
This is the *exact* same playbook used to instill fear and scare people into regulating and setting up barriers to open weight and open source model adoption which these companies know put their amortization and margins at serious risk. The outcome of this game is well known and well understood by this point. This FUD, even if it succeeds, only slows down, not stop, open source adoption. Eventually, open source always wins because people want something that they can control and manage costs.
Unless OpenAI, Anthropic, etc., will forever subsidize tokens, where it would never make sense for people, even after discounting 3rd Party/managed vs local/airgapped/self-host AI for risk, self-hosted AI, this FUD battle will eventually be lost, like it always has been. It is surprising to make this statement in late 2026, when OpenAI, Anthropic have not even IPO'd yet, and there is discussion in the streets that they'll IPO at trillions of dollars, something that is historically unthinkable, but history indicates otherwise: that in a decade or so, OpenAI and Anthropic are going to be footnotes in history and LLMs are going to be commodity with tokens selling all the way from unthinkably commodity to then-frontier intelligence prices.
We will tell those generations fond stories of how computers with hungry NVIDIA GPUs that could run quality language models in 2026 cost a month or two worth of a dev's salary, while the then-current generation phones that fit into a pocket has way more compute capability, were already AI native and were cheap as chips.
Somehow this plan manages to lean into every single bad outcome
That said, these frontier models are still astronomically huge.