If large models were primarily used for distillation to make smaller models better, that could be a more efficient use of resources. Smaller providers could choose to fund a larger model and benefit from it.
Open source AI must win
511–520 of 538 posts
Re: Open source AI must win
#512[dead]
Re: Open source AI must win
#513Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly, I've taken a different approach. AI supplements how my business builds and I'd much rather have all my engineers using Opus 4.8 rather than whatever the best open source models are. I believe open source is important, but for my business I'm just going to use the best tools I have available to me.
As a business decision it makes sense if you think that spilling out agent-written code to meet some profitable objective is a race you can win? I know I can't win that race or outspend the competition. So I have to rely on my instinct that in my area of business, people becoming dependent on agent-written code are getting further and further out of their depth, and that slow and steady will win the race. I am going…
We (a team of 6 developers) win this race day in and day out. We're constantly impressing our clients and delivering outstanding results that improve the business.
Hell, I'd wager there's MORE humanity in what we're building because we can afford (literally) to sweat details that previously we couldn't.
I don't understand the argument that somehow because two mega-corps are duking it out, I cannot use their tools to win in my small arena.
Re: Open source AI must win
#514Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if there is way local small LLMs can complement each other in away that the sum-total yields a much more performant LLM
Perhaps some radical MoE where you download _exactly_ the components you need as you need them. Currently MoE is switched usually on per-token per-layer basis, so you need all weights locally. But e.g. Apple made one which pre-selects all experts based on prompt embedding. That might be further scaled up - e.g. predict exactly what's needed
I don't understand why no labs create dedicated models per industry/expert. E.g. physics, electronics, chemistry, etc. Each model would be much smaller and better suitable for running locally. Everyone is trying to cram everything into a single model.
Re: Open source AI must win
#515Earlier quoted context omitted.
>only once it will prove inpossible [sic] to extract trillions from consumers. I am spreading a message of peace and sovereignty: Never subscribe. Never. Subscribe. Ever. Starve them out. Make their lenders take 95% haircuts. Just don't subscribe , whatever you do!
This is utopian thinking. The products are way too useful to not subscribe. The argument presupposes the worst-case negative-utility in the long-term scenario (AI companies will create a totalitarian nightmare) and pits it against the radical usefulness that the products are creating right now .
They aren't too good to not subscribe.
I've used over a trillion tokens in the last few years with zero subscription. In fact I have one with deepseek, spend 13 cents to test some automation. The rest is consumed free of charge to bleed the bleeders.
If/when they ALL enforce paid subscriptions, I will only run inference locally. By then consumer hardware will equal frontier models in term of speed and performance.
Re: Open source AI must win
#516Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a business decision it makes sense if you think that spilling out agent-written code to meet some profitable objective is a race you can win? I know I can't win that race or outspend the competition. So I have to rely on my instinct that in my area of business, people becoming dependent on agent-written code are getting further and further out of their depth, and that slow and steady will win the race. I am going…
We (a team of 6 developers) win this race day in and day out. We're constantly impressing our clients and delivering outstanding results that improve the business. Hell, I'd wager there's MORE humanity in what we're building because we can afford (literally) to sweat details that previously we couldn't. I don't understand the argument that somehow because two mega-corps are duking it out, I cannot use their tools to…
I suppose it's the juxtaposition of saying "I think open source is important" and then building your business criticality on the least open software systems on Earth.
In most organisations which are building on open source there's a pragmatism that some elements ( routers, BIOS, phones ) won't adhere to the philosophy. But it's completely different to make unknowable, solidly opaque systems the core tools of a business.
Re: Open source AI must win
#517Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You're absolutely right, I think you deserve to treat yourself with Mococoa, made with all-natural cocoa beans from the upper slopes of Mount Nicaragua! It's what humans like myself crave." Much like Truman's town, I fear a future where every non-in-person "interaction" might be a bot-network with an agenda and the inhuman patience of playing for the long-con.
Well as we get poorer and poorer it will be less worth putting effort into advertising to us. Im guessing AI will instead focus its effort on convincing rich people of various things.
It may be used to convince us to vote for (or not-riot-against) whatever the rich person wants.
Re: Open source AI must win
#518[flagged]
Re: Open source AI must win
#519Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a strong proponent of Open Source (TM) but I disagree with this take. The weights are the useful artifact here. You can modify them, fine tune them and do what you want with them. Unlike binary software there is nothing limiting that. It is also useful to have access to the training recipes and to some extent the data. But I'm of the opinion that learning on something is not copyright infringement, so there are m…
The analogy falls apart very quickly. Without the training data, your modifications amount to virtually nothing compared to what these "versions" are, and the idea that you can maintain and improve on these models without the continual support of the company that owns the training data AND harnesses AND in general build instructions is not very credible. This is why it's not rare that they "dump" old versions as free…
> The analogy falls apart very quickly. Without the training data, your modifications amount to virtually nothing compared to what these "versions" are, and the idea that you can maintain and improve on these models without the continual support of the company that owns the training data AND harnesses AND in general build instructions is not very credible.
This is completely wrong, and sort of shows why what you are saying is not a problem at all.
You can post-train any LLM very easily without access to the original training data.
People do it all the time.
Cursor post-training Kimi K2 is a great example.
> If Qwen decides to stop distributing models for download, you're basically stuck, _even_ if you have unlimited resources, it's not clear how the released weights help you; your best bet is to start almost from scratch.
What are you talking about? You just post-train it.
There is exactly zero different before and after they stop distributing it. People don't have access to the training data now (when they are distributing it) and post train very successfully.
What would you even use the training data for?
Re: Open source AI must win
#520Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would the 'source' be for an LLM? There is the structure, and the weights, there is no 'source'.
In case you're not just trolling, please learn how "the weights", which are analgous to a compiled executable, are made.
The weights are created through training. The 'source' would be the training data, which is going to be a massive amount of data, and is not something that could just be easily shared.