151–160 of 538 posts
Who's gonna pay to power an open source AI? Will it perform well enough to make Chat-GPT and Claude obsolete?
This should be the top post. Not Anthropic or OpenAI marketing plots. This is existential.
It's too late. You can one-shot a port of Linux to Rust and stop contributing to open source. The value of software is going to tend towards zero. The value of the software developer the same. Anthropic is now a kingmaker. It gets to decide which businesses get the expensive private model that can generate entire business functions at the drop of a hat. If you can't afford the price tag, then competition in the marke…
Touch grass brother. Seriously.
Who is going to fund it? Training is unfathomably expensive. You have either VC funded models looking for a return on investment, or CCP funded models looking to solidify authoritarian "model Chinese society". Maybe there are some university 4B models, but I doubt those will carry far.
I share your concerns, although we still see pretty similarly large and complex things that remain open source today. I am astonished on a daily basis that my Linux computer is so close to the same experience as two operating systems put out by trillion dollar companies. It even does things that those commercial alternatives don’t do. Also, if DeepSeek is truly putting out models with 1/10th the cost of Western compe…
I feel like they aren't comparable. Open source software just requires human labor, and lots of people are willing and able to share that with the world for free.
Training AI requires capital, to build and power giant datacenters. People don't donate capital at that level.
Open-source AI can, by definition, never "win". AI is just hillclimbing today, and closed labs can always absorb everything the open world does and build upon it. It doesn't really matter for most use cases, because the way AI is working is capability saturation. https://www.delanceyukschoolschesschallenge.com/the-rising-t... The only exception to this is fields that are inherently adversarial (to nature or others) a…
Open source models don't need to be anywhere near as good as Claude Mythos or even Claude Sonnet to 'win'. Open source 'winning' just means that there exists at least one open source alternative to closed models which is as good as, say, GPT 4... I mean, we're essentially there already with Google Gemma models. As a software engineer, I didn't notice any difference in my productivity since Sonnet. Of course Opus is b…
Is this really true? We just don't know what the maximum capability of AI is. If it turns out AI can be as intelligent and capable as something like Data from Star Trek, no one is going to be thinking GPT 4 is good enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>AI is just hillclimbing today That's what the Fable harness felt like. You give it a goal and it could try to get there through the shortest path given the tree of possibilities to get there. Iteratively, or recursively. Perhaps if we make a open coding AI, the design must be along these lines. Something that's easy to train, and serve from local machines. Albeit has loop / recursive hill climbing facilities built…
[flagged]
Your reflexively negative comments on anything relating to AI are as insight-free as they are numerous; it's all just vague shitting-on without even a hook or argument that could be engaged with and debated. It's pretty tiring, honestly. If you really think your point of view is valuable and others should pay attention to it, rather than just filtering it out like the trollish noise it usually is, why don't you put a little more effort in?
Where does Anthropic or OpenAI winning leave us? 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.
Or just opt out... you don't have to use these things.
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…
This is not true at all. It would be open source if you could download it and run it anywhere that is capable, and are free to move it and modify it as much as you want.
Just because you don't have a computer at home powerful enough doesn't mean it isn't open source.
Ever since a Chinese firm released DeepSeek I immediately came to the realization that any US tech firm "owning" AI is simply not going to happen. China will make sure of it. It's in their national security interest not to let that happen.
From the POV of geopolitics, IMHO the US shot itself in the foot by banning the export of the best chips to China. The US also somehow has the power to prevent a Dutch company (ASML) from selling to China too. That makes a little more sense to ban but the combination of banning EUV exports AND banning the best chips sowed the seeds for the destruction of all of this.
By banning chip sales, the US inadvertently created a captive market for Chinese chips with Chinese companies. If there were no chip ban, Chinese companies probably would've bought US chips. But they can't. So they can only buy from Huawei and SMEE (indirectly). The US forced China to realize it was in their national security interest to copy the best lithography and, by extension, the best AI chips.
So DeepSeek was reportedly developed on either older NVidia hardware or smuggled newer NVidia hardware but that won't last either. At some point it'll be completely Chinese made chips that are doing this.
And what's the biggest cost for a model? Training. But you do that once and the model like any software is infinitely copyable so China can under OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX (xAI) and that's what they're doing.
But it gets worse for the AI moat. Local models are going to get cheaper and cheaper to run. You can already run 31B models on sub-$5000 hardware. What do you think it'll cost in 5 years? Will larager parameter models keep getting better or will there be a law of diminishing returns? What is a B100 workload now, will be a Macbook Pro workload in as little as 5 years.
What if all these AI data centers are ultimately just going to be commoditized cloud hardware like AWS in the not too distant future? We already see Google renting big from SpaceX. I think the writedown on all these data center investments and the companies that are doing them is going to be extreme in the next 5 years.