In other words, if AI models become a commodity, the "AI leaders" will not be able to burn the cash like they do today, thus resulting in a "slower" (one could say instead "more sustainable") development of AI models.

Is the US planning to invade China and take away their models? Because otherwise China is still going to have the models even if the US bans them. I don't think they're going to be going with the US position on this one.

If I change one weight in Kimi, is it still a Chinese model?

If I fine-tune Kimi on pro-America nationalistic freedom loving anti-Chinese propaganda, is it still a Chinese model?

If I distill Kimi from one server to the next without ever directly transferring any weights, is it still a Chinese model?

If Claude accidentally trains on some of Kimi's output, is Claude then considered to be a Chinese model?

If China's next open-weight model is released secretly through a European company, is it still a Chinese model?

While your point is valid on its own merits, it isn't relevant here.

So Nvidia benefits from more inference providers running many Chinese models that they otherwise would not have been able to service.

Microsoft and Meta are also-rans at this point. Their best hope of catching up is probably leveraging their infra and open models.

And as a more general point - more major competitors in a domain is very good for everybody except those competitors themselves, who would rather there be as few as possible.

(a) sellers of hardware (Nvidia, IBM) and those who rent hardware out to others (Amazon, Microsoft)

They want open models because they don't have to license it to run it on their hardware, so they can offer lower cost and inspect what they are offering to clients

(b) open model creators (Arcee, Perplexity, Mistral, IBM, Microsoft)

...who would be unable to work if open-weight models are banned

(c) Software-heavy companies ( Mozilla, The Linux Foundation , ServiceNow, Microsoft, IBM, heck all of them)

...who want models that are cheap to run because that reduces the cost of running an LLM (whether you are trying to replace a software developer or just assist them, the value of a reduced cost LLM is directionally the same)

OpenAI and Anthropic can bring American open-weight model providers like Meta to court but not the Chinese. Chinese companies breaking American IP law (whether the law is correct or not) are basically immune. This has been going on forever, I guess enough is at stake finally for the federal government to care.

Therefore it is no surprise that both companies are among the signatories.

The motivation of Palantir is very transparent, they have launched a product created in cooperation with NVIDIA, which is a turnkey system (Sovereign AI) that includes all hardware (i.e. a rack with servers full of NVIDIA GPUs) and all software needed by a company to run on its premises LLM inference and also training/fine tuning.

Thus the Palantir product competes with OpenAI and Anthropic and it benefits from the existence of open weights LLMs.

The motivation of Microsoft is more obscure for now, but because its criticism was very similar to that of Palantir, about how dangerous it is for corporations to delegate the processing of their AI needs to external entities like OpenAI and Anthropic, I assume that Microsoft is also going to propose an alternative to using remotely the OpenAI and Anthropic APIs.

Unlike Palantir, Microsoft is not likely to suggest self-hosting on premises, but I suppose that they might promote self-hosting on some kind of instances rented from Azure.

MS is playing literally all the sides in this whole AI thing. They are a massive investor in oAI, and have lots of rights to use their models for a long time. They also have the cloud where they offer inference w/ all the benefits of already being there, data retention, etc. They also have a research wing that can build models (rumours are they're aiming for frontier-ish). I don't think there's currently an angle in this AI thing that MS hasn't aimed for.