OpenAI 高管批 Kimi K3 开源，硅谷多方驳斥其观点

开源模型可能具有“减速主义”倾向，因为它们会“抑制 AI 资本支出”。

是围绕中国开放权重模型的使用制造大量监管风险。

叽里咕噜说什么呢? 中国肯定不希望搞一大堆AI相关的金融泡沫啊，最好是相关需求能给国产算力搞落地了，这样就不用给英伟达送钱了。

至于什么监管风险，这怎么炒作呢？难道还能有比企业内部离线自部署更安全的策略？把数据交给G，O，A难道比放自己手里还安全？

这个怎么在讲中国开源有风险，奥特曼啥的闭源就没事了？又想搞TikTok那一套吗

美国 AI 实验室训练自己的产品时，使用的是“全人类的数据，却没有支付一分钱”。

太对了，用了我的数据训练，还不让我用…臭不要脸

哪来的路边一条，天天诋毁我国科技发展

闭关锁国要不得，还是得打开大门做生意

别封闭了，大美利坚还敢闭关锁国？

开门，做生意 ^-^

我猜kimi是这么想的：没有那么多算力卡，吃不下那么大的市场，那就开出来谁有能力谁吃！也欢迎a/部署kimi ^-^

原文：

转载

https://x.com/deanwball/status/2078133895766114412

仅代表他的个人观点

Some observations on Kimi:

1. 
   

   It’s a very good model! I don’t think its performance can be explained away by distillation or anything like that. In agentic coding sessions, it seems pretty much on par with the best public models of Q1 2026. In my fairly limited use, it also seemed very token hungry. It’s not obvious to me that this model is actually that cheap to run.

   
   


2. 
   

   I am personally surprised the Chinese state continues to allow the open sourcing of models this good, given potential risks. To be clear, I *myself* might be fine with models presenting this level of marginal risk being open weight, but I am surprised that China is fine with it. I suspect the reason they are is 75% explained by strategic blindness/lack of AGI-pilledness (the CCP is very Yann Lecun-y in its views of AI). The other 25% or so is their lack of compute for customer inference (making China’s open-weight strategy an unintended byproduct of US export controls) and the normal Chinese strategy of aggressive exports. For the companies, as opposed to the government, the decision to open source is partially ideological and partially because they are behind, and they know that very few people would pay for sub-frontier models from China.

   
   


3. 
   

   Open-weight models are inherently decelerationist, and I’m continually surprised to see the so-called “accelerationists” so excited about open-weight models. I suspect the reason they are is that they know open-weight models are effectively ungovernable, and they simply like the overall cloak of ungovernability open-weight models create over the whole of AI. It’s not a bad strategy; it reminds me of James Scott’s recounting of the hill people in “the art of not being governed.” Still, in the end, open-weight models deter further AI capex.

   
   


4. 
   

   One probable outcome of an open-weight-model-dominant world is full AI communism, which is precisely what China proposes: rather than a market product, AI is a “public good” which will ultimately be provided by the state as a kind of “digital public infrastructure.” This future strikes me as a dystopian hellscape, but I’ve never met an open-weight models advocate who doesn’t ultimately concede this is where things end. You’d be surprised how many ‘accelerationists’ lobbied me, while I was in government, to support an eleven or twelve-figure federally funded data center so that startups could train models at a subsidy and then give them away for free. There was no other way for AI to progress, they said. Perhaps this is the logical end state of things. Nonetheless, I find myself surprised to see supposed accelerationists excited about such an outcome. I think many of them just don’t know what they’re doing. Many accelerationists do not view the creation and serving of frontier models as a legitimate business.

   
   


5. 
   

   I would guess that the Trump Administration will at some point realize that their best strategy here would be to create large amounts of regulatory risk around the use of open-weight Chinese models. You don’t need to “ban open source” (one of the dumber motifs of AI policy discussion). You just need to direct every agency to issue soft law that creates FUD. “A Federal Reserve Advisory Bulletin found that there may be backdoors in Chinese AI models.” It needn’t be that well justified. You just create enough regulatory risk that every regulated enterprise backs off. You probably don’t want to create so much regulatory risk that you scare off the hyperscalers from serving Chinese models; this will just drive startups to sketchier providers. There’s a happy middle ground here. I’d assume they will do some version of this.

   
   


6. 
   

   It’s probably true that open-weight models of this capability make the world a bit more dangerous, but not so much more that you’ll really notice. At some point the models will be capable enough that you will notice. “A nonliving, invisible, dangerous, and infinitely self-replicating agent escaped from a Chinese lab,” you say? Color me shocked.

   
   

这么大参数的模型开不开源对于普通人来说都是闭源 ^-^

闹得麻麻的。谁还记得之前A/天天扯自己的mythos模型多么危险，后面被搞的fable上线又立马下架了，然后sol一出来又不停延期，到现在kimi出来没几天，又发文enjoy fable了 ^-^ ，合着fable一会too dangerous for common ppl to use，一会又大家请尽情享用fable了是吧 ^-^

你猜会不会是领导要求呢？看看最近新闻讲话

哈哈哈，典型的白皮强盗思维，跟自由贸易一个德性，我强的时候就自由贸易，我不占优势了就封锁限制围追堵截你

对于企业来说，数据安全才是优先级更高的吧，把数据交给A和O，用不了多久，他们就能直接出个竞品产品吊打你 ^-^