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

281–290 of 909 posts

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#281

Post by xpe »

podnami wrote: post #48
sadiq wrote: post #41

Looks like Groq (at 1k+ tokens/second) and Fireworks are already live on openrouter: https://openrouter.ai/openai/gpt-oss-120b $0.15M in / $0.6-0.75M out edit: Now Cerebras too at 3,815 tps for $0.25M / $0.69M out.

Wow this was actually blazing fast. I prompted "how can the 45th and 47th presidents of america share the same parents?" On ChatGPT.com o3 thought for for 13 seconds, on OpenRouter GPT OSS 120B thought for 0.7 seconds - and they both had the correct answer.

How many people are discussing this after one person did 1 prompt with 1 data point for each model and wrote a comment?

What is being measured here? For end-to-end time, one model is:

t_total = t_network + t_queue + t_batch_wait + t_inference + t_service_overhead

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#282

Post by mclau157 »

foundry27 wrote: post #154

Model cards, for the people interested in the guts: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/419b6906-9da6-406c-a19d-1bb078ac7... In my mind, I’m comparing the model architecture they describe to what the leading open-weights models (Deepseek, Qwen, GLM, Kimi) have been doing. Honestly, it just seems “ok” at a technical level: - both models use standard Grouped-Query Attention (64 query heads, 8 KV heads). The card talks about how…

You can get similar insights looking at the github repo https://github.com/openai/gpt-oss

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#283

Post by a_vanderbilt »

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.

At least in OpenAI's case, it raises the bar for potential competition while also implying that what they have behind the scenes is far better.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#285

Post by [deleted] »

ipaddr wrote: post #233
a_wild_dandan wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh absolutely, AI labs certainly talk their books, including any safety angles. The controversy/outrage extended far beyond those incentivized companies too. Many people had good faith worries about Llama. Open-weight models are now vastly more powerful than Llama-1, yet the sky hasn't fallen. It's just fascinating to me how apocalyptic people are. I just feel lucky to be around in what's likely the most important de…

"the most important decade in human history." Lol. To be young and foolish again. This covid laced decade is more of a placeholder. The current decade is always the most meaningful until the next one. The personal computer era, the first cars or planes, ending slavery needs to take a backseat to the best search engine ever. We are at the point where everyone is planning on what they are going to do with their hoverbo…

[deleted]

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#286

Post by BizarroLand »

hedora wrote: post #265
graemep wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ending slavery happened over many centuries, not in a given decade. Abolished and reintroduced in many places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slave...

Slavery is still legal and widespread in most of the US, including California. There was a ballot measure to actually abolish slavery a year or so back. It failed miserably.

The slavery of free humans is illegal in America, so now the big issue is figuring out how to convince voters that imprisoned criminals deserve rights.

Even in liberal states, the dehumanization of criminals is an endemic behavior, and we are reaching the point in our society where ironically having the leeway to discuss the humane treatment of even our worst criminals is becoming an issue that affects how we see ourselves as a society before we even have a framework to deal with the issue itself.

What one side wants is for prisons to be for rehabilitation and societal reintegration, for prisoners to have the right to decline to work and to be paid fair wages from their labor. They further want to remove for-profit prisons from the equation completely.

What the other side wants is the acknowledgement that prisons are not free, they are for punishment, and that prisoners have lost some of their rights for the duration of their incarceration and that they should be required to provide labor to offset the tax burden of their incarceration on the innocent people that have to pay for it. They also would like it if all prisons were for-profit as that would remove the burden from the tax payers and place all of the costs of incarceration onto the shoulders of the incarcerated.

Both sides have valid and reasonable wants from their vantage point while overlooking the valid and reasonable wants from the other side.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#287

Post by jlokier »

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 apache2.0, so by definition it's open source.

That's not true by any of the open source definitions in common use.

Source code (and, optionally, derived binaries) under the Apache 2.0 license are open source.

But compiled binaries (without access to source) under the Apache 2.0 license are not open source, even though the license does give you some rights over what you can do with the binaries.

Normally the question doesn't come up, because it's so unusual, strange and contradictory to ship closed-source binaries with an open source license. Descriptions of which licenses qualify as open source licenses assume the context that of course you have the source or could get it, and it's a question of what you're allowed to do with it.

The distinction is more obvious if you ask the same question about other open source licenses such as GPL or MPL. A compiled binary (without access to source) shipped with a GPL license is not by any stretch open source. Not only is it not in the "preferred form for editing" as the license requires, it's not even permitted for someone who receives the file to give it to someone else and comply with the license. If someone who receives the file can't give it to anyone else (legally), then it's obvioiusly not open source.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#288

Post by tgtweak »

foundry27 wrote: post #154

Model cards, for the people interested in the guts: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/419b6906-9da6-406c-a19d-1bb078ac7... In my mind, I’m comparing the model architecture they describe to what the leading open-weights models (Deepseek, Qwen, GLM, Kimi) have been doing. Honestly, it just seems “ok” at a technical level: - both models use standard Grouped-Query Attention (64 query heads, 8 KV heads). The card talks about how…

I think their MXFP4 release is a bit of a gift since they obviously used and tuned this extensively as a result of cost-optimization at scale - something the open source model providers aren't doing too much, and also somewhat of a competitive advantage.

Unsloth's special quants are amazing but I've found there to be lots of trade offs vs full quantization, particularly when striving for best first-shot attempts - which is by far the bulk of LLM use cases. Running a better (larger, newer) model at lower quantization to fit in memory, or with reduced accuracy/detail to speed it up both have value, but in the the pursuit of first-shot accuracy there doesn't seem to be many companies running their frontier models on reduced quantization. If openAI is in doing this in production that is interesting.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#289

Post by modeless »

bigyabai wrote: post #269
modeless wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With all due respect, you need to actually test out Qwen3 2507 or GLM 4.5 before making these sorts of claims. Both of them are comparable to OpenAI's largest models and even bench favorably to Deepseek and Opus: https://cdn-uploads.huggingface.co/production/uploads/62430a... It's cool to see OpenAI throw their hat in the ring, but you're smoking straight hopium if you think there's "no reason to run other open sourc…

> Both of them are comparable to OpenAI's largest models and even bench favorably to Deepseek and Opus

So are/do the new OpenAI models, except they're much smaller.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#290

Post by larodi »

x187463 wrote: post #23

Running a model comparable to o3 on a 24GB Mac Mini is absolutely wild. Seems like yesterday the idea of running frontier (at the time) models locally or on a mobile device was 5+ years out. At this rate, we'll be running such models in the next phone cycle.

We be running them in PIs off spare juice in no time, and they be billions given how chips and embedded spreads…
Post reply on HN