🔶 反思 Kimi 原帖之误与我对开放权重 AI 的看法

我想做两件事：（1）指出我认为自己在关于 Kimi 的原始帖子中错在哪里；（2）澄清我对开放权重 AI 的看法。在我加入 OpenAI 之前（对新关注者说明一下：我加入公司还不到两周，这是我在科技行业的第一份工作），我经常以冷静、分析的方式就当日争议发推。我风格的一个方面是说一些残酷诚实的话，包括那些对我所在的“阵营”和我的信念而言并不方便的话。关于 Kimi 的那篇帖子，很大程度上就是这种风格的产物。当我说美国政府大概会意识到其最佳选择是对中国 AI 实施缺乏正当理由的软性法律劝阻时，我并不是在把它当作一个“好主意”来提议。我究竟为什么要那样做？我为什么要用如此不留情面的词句来阐述我主张的东西？我是在试图描述我认为会发生的事情，而不是倡导任何事情。我的第一个错误：我现在意识到，这种分析风格已经不再站得住脚了。我的言辞被施加了太多审视，人们太容易从我的论断中编织阴谋论，诸如此类。我没有认识到这一点，这是我的错。第二个错误：我表述得相对不够精确，像往常一样，我是在为相当高语境的读者群写作，他们倾向于给我宽容，而不是逐字逐句地挑刺。举例来说，我不应该说开放权重模型毫无保留地是“减速主义”的；我并不相信这一点。我只相信一种特定的情况——开放权重模型在边际上减缓了资本支出，这一点简单明了地是正确的。我没有说除这一原因之外它还是减速主义的，而这也是我认为开放权重 AI 内在地是减速主义的唯一方式（尽管这是一个重要的方式）。在其他许多方面，开放权重 AI 是极度加速主义的。

现在，谈谈我对开放权重 AI 的立场。我最早接触互联网的经历是 21 世纪初在论坛上讨论哲学、音乐和电影。随着时间的推移，我意识到不同网站上的论坛使用相同的基础论坛软件；那是我第一次想到，“软件”是人做出来的东西（我知道这是一个简单的观察，但我们谈论的是一个 11 岁、之前没接触过电脑的孩子）。我研究了那个软件，发现它是“开源”的，由世界各地成千上万的人免费构建和维护，以促进数百万陌生人的交流。这一概念让我觉得异常美好，于是我决定试着帮忙。我开始为这个小小的论坛项目撰写技术文档，后来是代码。我就是这样最初学习技术技能的。我珍视那段时光、那款软件，并对开源软件抱有深切而持久的喜爱。在我的帖子下评论的绝大多数人，都对我之前的写作缺乏背景了解。例如，我在 2024 年写过这样的话：“那些希望囤积我们软件技术的人，很可能正在放弃——或者甚至不理解——我们通过开放性所赢得的惊人文明胜利”以及“我希望 AI 能为美国带来类似的碾压性胜利。要做到这一点，我们将需要再次设定全球标准。而要做到这一点，我们几乎肯定需要引领开源 AI，因为在信息技术领域，往往是开放协议和开放软件定义全球标准。”我坚持这些说法。我在政府任职期间，曾与同事们一道提出了强烈支持开放权重 AI 的想法和言辞，其中一部分工作进入了当前的美国 AI 战略。我也坚持那项工作。我还曾在两年多以前写道：“终有一天，前沿 AI 真的会危险到不宜开源。如果那一天到来，那将是一个悲伤的日子。但我们还没有到那个地步。今天的模型还不够有用——或不够危险——以证明如此急剧的公共政策转向是合理的。”我认为很明显，我们正在接近我所描述的那个临界点——到了那个点，如果没有重大的技术安全突破，前沿开放权重模型分发所涉及的国家安全影响就实在太严重了。我不认为我们已经到了那个点（正如我在那篇文章中所说），但行进的方向是清楚的，作为一个分析者必须对此诚实。各国政府最终会意识到这些风险，而一旦他们意识到，他们的风险容忍度将比我低得多。我们今天在特朗普政府身上看到了这一点，它曾自豪地倡导开源 AI，如今却有一个事实上的前沿 AI 许可制度，我怀疑这会让发布“Mythos”级别模型的权重变得颇具挑战（如果他们最终仍会执行的话）。每一届政府一旦明白自己身处战壕，都会变成安全主义者。你不必喜欢这一点。我也不喜欢。但这是我所见的现实，而我在写作中一直试图做的，就是如实地描述我所见的现实，即使这对我以及我的偏好来说是不方便的。我打算继续这样做。我不会被无知和聒噪的批评者堵住嘴。不过，我将必须努力找到在当前工作中应采纳的新表达方式，这显然比我之前以为的还要深刻地改变了我公开发言的性质。但请相信我：我哪儿也不会去。我不会退出公开写作，也不会退出在公开场合说不方便的话。我对严厉的批评不为所动，而且我知道，如此程度的反应，部分是因为触动了某根神经。请耐心陪我一段路，如果可以的话，请记住我是一个凡人，有一个六个月大的男婴要抚养，一本书要写，一份新工作，关于我们共同的未来，疑问远多于答案。

我恐怕得告诉你，要在这个网站上做我以前做的那种写作实际上是不可能的，不是因为 OpenAI 有任何人审查我，而是因为我作为一名前沿实验室员工分享分析时，会遭到数量惊人的敌意。我享受快速写作……

I'd like to do two things: (1) tell you where I think I erred in my original post about Kimi and (2) set the record straight about my views on open-weight AI. Before I joined OpenAI (and folks who are new followers: I joined the company less than two weeks ago and it is my first job in the technology industry), I often tweeted about the controversy of the day in a cold and analytic fashion. One aspect of my style was saying brutally honest things, including things inconvenient for my 'side' and my beliefs. The post about Kimi was largely written in that vein. When I said that the USG would probably realize its best option is to do ill-justified soft-law discouragement of Chinese AI, I wasn't proposing it like a good idea. Why on Earth would I do that? Why would I frame something I'm advocating for in such brutal terms? I am trying to describe what I believe will happen, not advocate for anything. My first mistake: What I now realize is that this style of analysis is no longer tenable. There is simply too much scrutiny on my words, too much temptation to draw conspiracies from my claims, and the like. It is my fault for not realizing this. Second mistake: I was relatively imprecise, writing, as I usually do, for a fairly high-context audience that was inclined to give me grace rather than pick apart every word. I should not have said, for instance, that open-weight models are unqualifiedly 'decelerationist'; I don't believe that. I only believe specifically that open-weight models decelerate capex spending on the margin, which is straightforwardly true. I did not say it was decelerationist for any other reason than that, and this is the only way in which I think open-weight AI is inherently decelerationist (though it is a big way). In many other ways, open-weight AI is profoundly accelerationist. Now, to where I stand on open-weight AI. My earliest experiences on the internet were posting in forums about philosophy, music, and movies in the early 2000s. Over time I realizes that forums on different websites had the same underlying forum software; this was the first time it occurred to me that 'software' is a thing people make (I realize this is a simple observation, but we are talking about an 11 year old with no prior exposure to computers). I looked into the software, and discovered that it was 'open source,' built and maintained for free by thousands of people around the world to facilitate the communication of millions of strangers. This notion struck me as deeply beautiful, and I decided I'd try to help. I began writing technical documentation, and later on, code, for this little forum project. This was how I first learned technical skills. I cherish that time, that software, and I have deep and abiding affinity for open-source software. The vast majority of the people commenting on my post have very little context for my prior writing. For instance, the fact that I wrote, in 2024, things like: "those who wish to hoard our software technologies may well be foreclosing on—or perhaps not even understand—the staggering civilizational victory that we earned through openness" or "I would like for AI to result in a similar smashing victory for America. To do that, we will need to set the global standard yet again. And to do that, we will almost certainly need to lead in open-source AI, because it is open protocols and open software that tend to define global standards in information technologies." I stand by these things. When I was in government, I worked alongside my colleagues to develop ideas and rhetoric that was strongly supportive of open-weight AI, and some of this work made it into the current US AI strategy. I stand by that work too. I also wrote, more than two years ago: "The day may come when frontier AI really is too dangerous to open source. If so, that will be a sad day. But we’re not there yet. Today’s models are not sufficiently useful—or dangerous—to justify such a drastic shift in public policy." I think it's pretty clear that we are approaching the point I describe--the point where, absent a major technical safety breakthrough, the national security implications of frontier open-weight model distribution are simply too severe. I don't think we're there yet (as I said in the piece), but the direction of travel is clear, and an analyst must be honest about this. Governments will realize these risks eventually, and when they do, they will have much lower risk tolerance than I have. We see this today with the Trump Administration, which once proudly championed open-source AI and now has a de facto licensing regime for frontier AI that I suspect will make it a challenge (if they still end up enforcing it) to release the weights of models of the "Mythos" tier. Every government will be safetyists once they understand themselves to be in the foxhole. You don't have to like this. I don't. But it is the reality as I see it, and what I have always tried to do with my writing is describe reality as I see it, even when it is inconvenient for me and my preferences. I intend to continue doing this. I will not be silenced by ignorant and loud critics. Yet I will have to work to find the new register I should adopt in my current job, which clearly changes the nature of my public communications even more than I had thought. But believe me: I'm not going anywhere. I am not retreating from public writing, and I am not retreating from saying inconvenient things in public. I am unfazed by harsh criticism, and I know that a reaction of this magnitude is in part the result of having struck a chord. Bear with me, and if you can, remember that I am a human being with a six-month old boy to raise, a book to write, a new job, and much more questions than answers about our collective future.

I’m afraid to tell you that it is effectively impossible to do the kind of writing I used to do on this website, not because anyone at OpenAI censors me but because of the sheer volume of hostility I get for sharing my analysis as a frontier lab employee. I enjoyed writing quick Show more