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

The Moat or the Commons

warman.life

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 39 posts

Re: The Moat or the Commons

#11

Post by hnav »

2001zhaozhao wrote: post #6

I think it's good to note that there are scenarios where the trend of open models keeping up will not continue forever. AI development speed is increasingly influenced by the quality of the model you are able to use internally. The frontier labs could easily pull ahead again if they increasingly withhold their best models (e.g. Claude Mythos) from the public entirely. They will benefit from increased R&D speed intern…

Superior architectures will leak pretty quickly via engineers. Withholding your best models doesn't work unless you have no competition.

Re: The Moat or the Commons

#12

Post by pkilgore »

I can't tell if this was written by AI or by an author that has absorbed all of its worse tendencies, but past the bullet list at the front this was terrible writing. It's like the author was trying to meet a page requirement.

Re: The Moat or the Commons

#13

Post by carterschonwald »

ramoz wrote: post #4
ramoz wrote: post #2

> DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, GLM — running on the LangChain, vLLM, llama.cpp, and Ollama stack "running on the LangChain" ?? EDIT: look, I think the general discussion is important, so I don't want to denounce the article. I, for one, am excited for better control, ownership, and accessibility of models. The ride labs take us on can be quite frustrating. Maybe there's even signal that the model progression is stalling (ie…

There was a bigger opportunity here to mention OpenCode, Pi, etc - open Harnesses that provide accessibility to the oss models, a platform others can build around, and something enterprises can adopt in reliable ways; for the most dominant use case of AI today.

more than that, its pretty clear that there is an insane underinvestment in the harness layer. ive been iterating on my own ideas in that area through the lens of increasing reliability. and holy crap is there so much low hanging fruit. i literally can’t figure out a sustainable way to do the work without commercializing at that layer

Re: The Moat or the Commons

#14

Post by GenerWork »

There's a fourth option: the frontier labs are used by businesses who require (or think they require) the very best models and want to outsource model compliance such as HIPAA to someone else, and then individuals/smaller companies use the open source models.

Re: The Moat or the Commons

#15

Post by echelon »

danny_codes wrote: post #9
2001zhaozhao wrote: post #6

I think it's good to note that there are scenarios where the trend of open models keeping up will not continue forever. AI development speed is increasingly influenced by the quality of the model you are able to use internally. The frontier labs could easily pull ahead again if they increasingly withhold their best models (e.g. Claude Mythos) from the public entirely. They will benefit from increased R&D speed intern…

This seems like a wildly unlikely risk. Innovations in this space are just mathematical ideas, easy to write down in a paper and replicate. It’s much more likely that performance will plateau and open weights will catch up asymptotically

> It’s much more likely that performance will plateau and open weights will catch up asymptotically

I really don't think so. This almost never structurally happens.

I think it'll be more like Linux on the Desktop.

Or Ubuntu on the smartphone.

Or Firefox.

We'll have open weights, but 99% of everything will go through hyperscalers.

Re: The Moat or the Commons

#17

Post by retr0rocket »

ramoz wrote: post #2

> DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, GLM — running on the LangChain, vLLM, llama.cpp, and Ollama stack "running on the LangChain" ?? EDIT: look, I think the general discussion is important, so I don't want to denounce the article. I, for one, am excited for better control, ownership, and accessibility of models. The ride labs take us on can be quite frustrating. Maybe there's even signal that the model progression is stalling (ie…

[dead]

Re: The Moat or the Commons

#18

Post by sergiotapia »

One anecdote: I've been using Kimi K2.6 exclusively for code work for about 1 week now (since it was released) with opencode. I don't really miss claude/codex. Kimi is much faster and cheaper and good enough for all my uses cases writing elixir and ruby code.

And it'll only get better/cheaper.

Re: The Moat or the Commons

#19

Post by 2001zhaozhao »

hnav wrote: post #11
2001zhaozhao wrote: post #6

I think it's good to note that there are scenarios where the trend of open models keeping up will not continue forever. AI development speed is increasingly influenced by the quality of the model you are able to use internally. The frontier labs could easily pull ahead again if they increasingly withhold their best models (e.g. Claude Mythos) from the public entirely. They will benefit from increased R&D speed intern…

Superior architectures will leak pretty quickly via engineers. Withholding your best models doesn't work unless you have no competition.

> Withholding your best models doesn't work unless you have no competition.

It could also work if you DO have competition but your compute capacity is overbooked anyway, so releasing the better model doesn't actually make you that much more money (except for raising prices for the same amount of compute, which would give limited gains).

This is pretty much the situation Anthropic is in today.

Re: The Moat or the Commons

#20

Post by oofbey »

danny_codes wrote: post #9
2001zhaozhao wrote: post #6

I think it's good to note that there are scenarios where the trend of open models keeping up will not continue forever. AI development speed is increasingly influenced by the quality of the model you are able to use internally. The frontier labs could easily pull ahead again if they increasingly withhold their best models (e.g. Claude Mythos) from the public entirely. They will benefit from increased R&D speed intern…

This seems like a wildly unlikely risk. Innovations in this space are just mathematical ideas, easy to write down in a paper and replicate. It’s much more likely that performance will plateau and open weights will catch up asymptotically

Mathematical ideas are very difficult to protect. But models can also be improved with brute force improvements in size. Imagine Mythos is a 32 trillion parameter model for example. That could be very difficult to replicate even though everybody knows exactly how it works.
Post reply on HN