Nathan Lambert says the shift of AI research from academic settings without commercial incentives to proprietary industry labs has coincided with public distrust in tech

NLNathan Lambert@natolambert

For a long time, academic researchers being at the cutting edge of new technologies has been a great social equilibrium. Neutral, unbiased technologists have been the people to spread new ideas to the world. As AI research takes off in velocity, it is also going behind closed doors. The tech industry has sewed distrust, and now they are the ones trying to tell the world about incredible changes coming. It's a big loss to a form of social contract in America. There's been a history of scientists helping society understand new technologies. There is a public service in the culture of science that I want to see continue. It's being exacerbated by feelings of FOMO, especially finically driven, where I'm seeing many people who previously wanted to be professors -- and likely still do deep down -- feel a need to conform and chase money, in a pocket of industry. I get it, I grapple with this. For those with a safety net, there will be great returns to some who choose to zag, and try to build something good, for people who need something different. For me, this is building interesting, fully-open models, to show what you can do with a variety of open weight sizes. Yes, AI's immediate future is dictated by the frontier, but it's long-term trajectory still deeply includes academic institutions and open science. Knowledge will always diffuse, but to whom? As of today, I think China is positioned to be the global home of AI research in a few years. The home of research is where ideas are accessible, spread rapdily, and are nurtured. The U.S. seems to be unwinding many institutions and relationships. The largest returns go to people who build something differentiated, at least in reputation, and a lot of people are not being shown that this path exists.

NLNathan Lambert@natolambert

For a long time, academic researchers being at the cutting edge of new technologies has been a great social equilibrium. Neutral, unbiased technologists have been the people to spread new ideas to the world. As AI research takes off in velocity, it is also going behind closed doors. The tech industry has sewed distrust, and now they are the ones trying to tell the world about incredible changes coming. It's a big loss to a form of social contract in America. There's been a history of scientists helping society understand new technologies. There is a public service in the culture of science that I want to see continue. It's being exacerbated by feelings of FOMO, especially finically driven, where I'm seeing many people who previously wanted to be professors -- and likely still do deep down -- feel a need to conform and chase money, in a pocket of industry. I get it, I grapple with this. For those with a safety net, there will be great returns to some who choose to zag, and try to build something good, for people who need something different. For me, this is building interesting, fully-open models, to show what you can do with a variety of open weight sizes. Yes, AI's immediate future is dictated by the frontier, but it's long-term trajectory still deeply includes academic institutions and open science. Knowledge will always diffuse, but to whom? As of today, I think China is positioned to be the global home of AI research in a few years. The home of research is where ideas are accessible, spread rapdily, and are nurtured. The U.S. seems to be unwinding many institutions and relationships. The largest returns go to people who build something differentiated, at least in reputation, and a lot of people are not being shown that this path exists.

NLNathan Lambert@natolambert

For a long time, academic researchers being at the cutting edge of new technologies has been a great social equilibrium. Neutral, unbiased technologists have been the people to spread new ideas to the world. As AI research takes off in velocity, it is also going behind closed doors. The tech industry has sewed distrust, and now they are the ones trying to tell the world about incredible changes coming. It's a big loss to a form of social contract in America. There's been a history of scientists helping society understand new technologies. There is a public service in the culture of science that I want to see continue. It's being exacerbated by feelings of FOMO, especially finically driven, where I'm seeing many people who previously wanted to be professors -- and likely still do deep down -- feel a need to conform and chase money, in a pocket of industry. I get it, I grapple with this. For those with a safety net, there will be great returns to some who choose to zag, and try to build something good, for people who need something different. For me, this is building interesting, fully-open models, to show what you can do with a variety of open weight sizes. Yes, AI's immediate future is dictated by the frontier, but it's long-term trajectory still deeply includes academic institutions and open science. Knowledge will always diffuse, but to whom? As of today, I think China is positioned to be the global home of AI research in a few years. The home of research is where ideas are accessible, spread rapdily, and are nurtured. The U.S. seems to be unwinding many institutions and relationships. The largest returns go to people who build something differentiated, at least in reputation, and a lot of people are not being shown that this path exists.