Twitter/X

@johnloeber argues the NYT piece by Paul Mozur, Satariano, and Aaron Krolik (Aug…

2026-08-06 · 05:17 UTC ·@johnloeber ·1 min read

Brief

@johnloeber criticizes a NYT piece (Mozur et al., Aug 5, 2026) for framing an "open vs closed" AI model debate instead of recognizing cost as the main driver: the article omits fine‑tuning, mentions self‑hosting only once, and shows widespread adoption of Chinese models because they are cheaper and effective, mirroring China's industrial growth.

Why it matters

@johnloeber argues the NYT piece by Paul Mozur, Satariano, and Aaron Krolik (Aug 5, 2026) misframes an "open vs closed" model debate: nobody in the article mentions fine‑tuning, only one interviewee raises self‑hosting, and almost everyone focuses on price.

Key details

  • He warns decisions are driven by cost—not openness—because Chinese models are "cheap and good" while U.S. models are expensive, a trend he likens to the broader rise of Chinese industrial output and fears this misreading will skew policy and market conclusions.
Source evidence

While this is an interesting article, it's another instance of the "open vs closed" model debate being totally misleading

Nobody in this article talks about finetuning. One person talks about self-hosting. Almost everyone is talking about price! They're cheap! It's about cost!

The story is that people are using Chinese models because they're cheap and American models are expensive. Whether or not the models are open or closed is almost completely irrelevant.

And I really fear that this is causing people to misread the debate and how decisions are being made. People are using the models because they're cheap and good. That's it. And that's commensurate with the rise of all other Chinese industrial output.

rat king 🐀 (@MikeIsaac)

great piece from @paulmozur @satariano @Aaron_Krolik on the rise of chinese open source models across african countries

nytimes.com/2026/08/05/techn…

— https://nitter.net/MikeIsaac/status/2085007888108671240#m