Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open models by OpenAI

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 909 posts

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#161

Post by asdev »

a_wild_dandan wrote: post #113
asdev wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meta is so cooked, I think most enterprises will opt for OpenAI or Anthropic and others will host OSS models themselves or on AWS/infra providers.

I'll accept Meta's frontier AI demise if they're in their current position a year from now. People killed Google prematurely too (remember Bard?), because we severely underestimate the catch-up power bought with ungodly piles of cash.

catching up gets exponentially harder as time passes. way harder to catch up to current models than it was to the first iteration of gpt-4

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#162

Post by organsnyder »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #137
Disposal8433 wrote: post #21

Please don't use the open-source term unless you ship the TBs of data downloaded from Anna's Archive that are required do build it yourself. And dont forget all the system prompts to censor the multiple topics that they don't want you to see.

It's apache2.0, so by definition it's open source. Stop pushing for training data, it'll never happen, and there's literally 0 reason for it to happen (both theoretical and practical). Apache2.0 IS opensource.

What is the source that's open? Aren't the models themselves more akin to compiled code than to source code?

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#163

Post by _flux »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #137
Disposal8433 wrote: post #21

Please don't use the open-source term unless you ship the TBs of data downloaded from Anna's Archive that are required do build it yourself. And dont forget all the system prompts to censor the multiple topics that they don't want you to see.

It's apache2.0, so by definition it's open source. Stop pushing for training data, it'll never happen, and there's literally 0 reason for it to happen (both theoretical and practical). Apache2.0 IS opensource.

No, it's open weight. You wouldn't call applications with only Apache 2.0-licensed binaries "open source". The weights are not the "source code" of the model, they are the "compiled" binary, therefore they are not open source.

However, for the sake of argument let's say this release should be called open source.

Then what do you call a model that also comes with its training material and tools to reproduce the model? Is it also called open source, and there is no material difference between those two releases? Or perhaps those two different terms should be used for those two different kind of releases?

If you say that actually open source releases are impossible now (for mostly copyright reasons I imagine), it doesn't mean that they will be perpetually so. For that glorious future, we can leave them space in the terminology by using the term open weight. It is also the term that should not be misleading to anyone.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#165

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #133
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have always thought that if we can somehow get an AI which is insanely good at coding, so much so that It can improve itself, then through continuous improvements, they will get better models of everything else idk Maybe you guys call it AGI, so anytime I see progress in coding, I think it goes just a tiny bit towards the right direction Plus it also helps me as a coder to actually do some stuff just for the fun. M…

Not to open that can of worms, but in most definitions self-improvement is not an AGI requirement. That's already ASI territory (Super Intelligence). That's the proverbial skynet (pessimists) or singularity (optimists).

Hmm my bad. Maybe Yeah I always thought that it was the endgame of humanity but isn't AGI supposed to be that (the endgame)

What would AGI mean, solving some problem that it hasn't seen? or what exactly? I mean I think AGI is solved, no?

If not, I see people mentioning that horizon alpha is actually a gpt 5 model and its predicted to release on thursday on some betting market, so maybe that fits AGI definition?

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#167

Post by WhyNotHugo »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #137
Disposal8433 wrote: post #21

Please don't use the open-source term unless you ship the TBs of data downloaded from Anna's Archive that are required do build it yourself. And dont forget all the system prompts to censor the multiple topics that they don't want you to see.

It's apache2.0, so by definition it's open source. Stop pushing for training data, it'll never happen, and there's literally 0 reason for it to happen (both theoretical and practical). Apache2.0 IS opensource.

It’s open source, but it’s a binary-only release.

It’s like getting a compiled software with an Apache license. Technically open source, but you can’t modify and recompile since you don’t have the source to recompile. You can still tinker with the binary tho.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#168

Post by mythz »

Getting great performance running gpt-oss on 3x A4000's:

    gpt-oss:20b = ~46 tok/s
More than 2x faster than my previous leading OSS models:

    mistral-small3.2:24b = ~22 tok/s 
    gemma3:27b           = ~19.5 tok/s
Strangely getting nearly the opposite performance running on 1x 5070 Ti:

    mistral-small3.2:24b = ~39 tok/s 
    gpt-oss:20b          = ~21 tok/s
Where gpt-oss is nearly 2x slow vs mistral-small 3.2.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#169

Post by modeless »

tedivm wrote: post #150
modeless wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, these are much smaller models than Qwen3 and GLM 4.5 with similar performance. Fewer parameters and fewer bits per parameter. They are much more impressive and will run on garden variety gaming PCs at more than usable speed. I can't wait to try on my 4090 at home. There's basically no reason to run other open source models now that these are available, at least for non-multimodal tasks.

Qwen3 has multiple variants ranging from larger (230B) than these models to significantly smaller (0.6b), with a huge number of options in between. For each of those models they also release quantized versions (your "fewer bits per parameter). I'm still withholding judgement until I see benchmarks, but every point you tried to make regarding model size and parameter size is wrong. Qwen has more variety on every level…

The benchmarks of the OpenAI models are comparable to the largest variants of other open models. The smaller variants of other open models are much worse.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#170

Post by TrackerFF »

ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #76

Why do companies release open source LLMs? I would understand it, if there was some technology lock-in. But with LLMs, there is no such thing. One can switch out LLMs without any friction.

LLMs are terrible, purely speaking from the business economic side of things.

Frontier / SOTA models are barely profitable. Previous gen model lose 90% of their value. Two gens back and they're worthless.

And given that their product life cycle is something like 6-12 months, you might as well open source them as part of sundowning them.

Post reply on HN