21–30 of 538 posts
With open-weight AI, there might not be an incentive to put large sums of capital towards training / research. There might be a donation fund of some sorts, but it certainly won't reach the level of fundraising that the frontier labs are receiving. Because of this, I think it might not be possible to have AI *only* open-weight; major players like OpenAI, Anthropic, Google will likely stay for good, with better models…
what is Open Source AI even? to me Open Source, like Free Software, is something i can run on my own computer. any AI system that runs on a computer that i do not control is by my definition not Open Source. so how then can Open Source AI win? it can't even compete. even if we collect enough money and create a dedicated Open Source organization to build and run a community owned AI datacenter, how does that help? so…
Dependents of an AI-megacorp for our "facts"? Our software? Our work?
It's possible these companies will become everyone's boss, and will dictate to everyone what everyone is allowed to work on, think, say, do, believe, etc.
Before Big Tech springs that trap, we must support and divert resources to open models.
it is inevitable that it will win information wants to be free
This is not about information but about capital. Even if we had free access to the weights of the best models in the world: who would be able to run them?
These models and the hardware they are running on will get even more efficient. We are nowhere near the physical limits of what we can achieve.
With open-weight AI, there might not be an incentive to put large sums of capital towards training / research. There might be a donation fund of some sorts, but it certainly won't reach the level of fundraising that the frontier labs are receiving. Because of this, I think it might not be possible to have AI *only* open-weight; major players like OpenAI, Anthropic, Google will likely stay for good, with better models…
I think the same, but I also think that local AI is actually inevitable, even if not open source models. I wouldn't be surprised to see OpenAI and others release an on-prem product. Whether that's effectively an appliance rack, or some other form, people (large companies) are going to want to run inference locally for data sovereignty & cost controls. Especially if we get to a point where companies want AI integrated…
That is, of course, unless they develop their own hardware specifically to run this open model. But, that does ruin the point of open models.
Can we assume that the author isn't using "Opensource" to mean "Openweights"? Or are we still collectively brainwashed by the strategic false equivalence established by Big AI CMOs?
I'd never though I'd have to utter the expression "open as in beer".
The blatant attempt at manipulating vocabulary here is... quite blatant.
With open-weight AI, there might not be an incentive to put large sums of capital towards training / research. There might be a donation fund of some sorts, but it certainly won't reach the level of fundraising that the frontier labs are receiving. Because of this, I think it might not be possible to have AI *only* open-weight; major players like OpenAI, Anthropic, Google will likely stay for good, with better models…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the same, but I also think that local AI is actually inevitable, even if not open source models. I wouldn't be surprised to see OpenAI and others release an on-prem product. Whether that's effectively an appliance rack, or some other form, people (large companies) are going to want to run inference locally for data sovereignty & cost controls. Especially if we get to a point where companies want AI integrated…
I do believe that if OpenAI and others release an open-weight model that is better or on par with their frontier variants, it might ruin their primary business model. That is, of course, unless they develop their own hardware specifically to run this open model. But, that does ruin the point of open models.