Why does ai-2027 predict China falling behind? Because the next level of compute beyond the current level is going to be hard for DeepSeek to muster. In other words, that DeepSeek will be behind in 2026 because of hardware deficits in late 2025. If things moved more slowly, and the critical strategic point hit in 2030 instead of 2027, I think it's likely China would have closed the compute gap by then.
I agree with this take, but I think it misses some key alternative possibilities. The failure of the compute-rich Llama models to compete with the compute poorer but talent and drive rich Alibaba and DeepSeek shows that even a substantial compute lead can be squandered. Given that there is a lot of room for algorithmic improvements (as proven by the efficiency of the human brain), this means that determined engineering plus willingness to experiment rather than doubling-down on currently working tech (as it seems like Anthropic, Google DM, and OpenAI are likely to do) may give enough of a breakthrough to hit the regime of recursive self-improvement before or around the same time as the compute-rich companies. Once that point is hit, a lead can be gained and maintained through reckless acceleration....
Adopting new things as quickly as the latest model predicts that they work, without pausing for cautious review, and you can move a lot faster than a company proceeding cautiously.
How much faster?
How much compute advantage does the recklessness compensate for?
How reckless will the underdogs be?
These are all open questions in my mind, with large error bars. This is what I think ai-2027 misses in their analysis.
Is it possible Meta just trained on bad data while Google and DeepSeek trained on good? See my two comments here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Wnv739iQjkBrLbZnr/meta-releases-llama-4-herd-of-models?commentId=KkvDqZAuTwR7PCybB
No, it would probably be a mix of "all of the above". FB is buying data from the same places everyone else does, like Scale (which we know from anecdotes like when Scale delivered FB a bunch of blatantly-ChatGPT-written 'human rating data' and FB was displeased), and was using datasets like books3 that are reasonable quality. The reported hardware efficiency numbers have never been impressive, they haven't really innovated in architecture or training method (even the co-distillation for Llama-4 is not new, eg. ERNIE was doing that like 3 years ago), and in... (read more)
Some ask, "what should the US gov have done instead?"
Here's an answer I like to that question, from max_paperclips:
https://x.com/max_paperclips/status/1909085803978035357
https://x.com/max_paperclips/status/1907946171290775844