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

There is minimal downside to switching to open models

marble.onl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 351 posts

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#201

Post by seba_dos1 »

cpursley wrote: post #94
earthnail wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From all the large governmental institutions, the EU is the one currently holding up traditional western values. That gives it street cred in this subject.

With all the issues in the US and generally wrong direction, I can’t remember them ever arresting people for mean tweets in the way that Germany and the UK have. They all seem to be running full speed towards a surveillance state.

Yes, the US doesn't arrest people for death threats on Twitter, it's too busy actually killing those that oppose ICE.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#202

Post by trollbridge »

coffinbirth wrote: post #70

> Open models are served via various means, some by the companies that released them and some by third parties like OpenRouter. Unfortunately, both of these routes are dodgier in terms of privacy and data sharing, and I would not feel the same comfort sending API calls containing client or confidential data to them. That's why I'm using eurouter.ai with the following routing rule for all my requests: { "model": "glm-…

The great part about open models is that you can do this.

Do you have a sound reason to need EU data locality? You can.

Do you want the confidence (and are willing to accept the expense) of only running models on local hardware you control? You can.

Do you want the cheapest possible option - choosing a Chinese, for example, provider, or perhaps a provider offering it for free where you agree they can use your prompts? You can.

Do you need to comply with some kind of regulation like GDPR or rules for contracting with the U.S. federal government? No problem. (Although I'm still waiting for DeepSeek V4 to show up on Amazon BedRock so it can be used from GovCloud...)

Do you have moral objections and want to actually live by them? You can.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#203

Post by trollbridge »

johndough wrote: post #110
coffinbirth wrote: post #70

> Open models are served via various means, some by the companies that released them and some by third parties like OpenRouter. Unfortunately, both of these routes are dodgier in terms of privacy and data sharing, and I would not feel the same comfort sending API calls containing client or confidential data to them. That's why I'm using eurouter.ai with the following routing rule for all my requests: { "model": "glm-…

I had a look at eurouter.ai and it seems like an extremely bad offer. - The prices are ridiculous (15 % markup for free account). - They have a rate limit of 1000 requests per month, unless you pay 40€ per month for ... what exactly is their value proposition? - They have a single provider (TensorX) for DeepSeek-V4-Pro, with a cache read cost that is over 100 times higher than DeepSeek ($0.44 vs $0.003625). Notably,…

It looks like a business opportunity, then, to provide inference that is EU-local and/or EU-owned.

If there aren't enough businesses who want to do this, the EU should figure out how it can properly incentivise that to change.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#204

Post by trollbridge »

t-3 wrote: post #196
throwaway27448 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surely, nationwide daily protests would make elected officials reconsider their positions, given an upcoming midterm election, while there still is one. Hah. When was the last time a non-violent protest yielded some kind of result by itself? Certainly never in american history. Anyway, there are daily protests. They just aren't covered by the media. Hell, the protests for palestine never stopped... the media just n…

Women's suffrage was relatively nonviolent.

As was the civil rights era. The people who chose to be violent made it take longer, actually.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#205

Post by hvb2 »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #108
p_j_w wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> values that people in the US might care about (freedom of speech, limited govt, etc). The US federal government forced Paramount to take Colbert off the air. Seems that people in the US don’t actually value these things. > What values specifically are you optimizing for here? Probably not being fascist.

> The US federal government forced Paramount to take Colbert off the air. Not really; the Ellisons are quite close to Trump. Nobody was forced to do anything. Had the FCC actually revoked their license, and had Paramount actually been willing to fight, they could have sued. It's not easy to force anyone that rich to do anything; the state works on behalf of capital. It seems like europe is more aware of the meaningle…

You might want to read the 3rd paragraph of this article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merger_of_Skydance_Media_and_P...

Read that timeline and then see if you're still convinced that they didn't at least seem to have done a thing or 2 to appease the federal government

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#206

Post by ttoinou »

Phlogi wrote: post #140
ttoinou wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You dont care about which exact provider it is using behind the hood ?

No, as long as they follow the requirements, especially the data privacy agreements. What would you? Price?

How do you know they're following requirements ? At least a quick search about the company providing the service would be useful

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#207

Post by NamlchakKhandro »

leptons wrote: post #119
lmm wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With all the issues in the US and generally wrong direction, I can’t remember them ever arresting people for mean tweets in the way that Germany and the UK have. Then you haven't been paying attention. The constitution prevents citizens from being convicted, but that doesn't stop arrests or being turned away at the border (even for permanent residents who've lived in the US for decades), and US citizens don't seem…

>and US citizens don't seem to care I think maybe you haven't been paying attention. Most of us do care. Trump's approval rating is pretty low at 36%, and his disapproval rating is high. Just because he's still causing chaos doesn't mean the majority of us don't care about it. There's just no legal way to remove him, and his cronies simply won't do it - there's not enough votes in congress or he would have been gone…

NPR as your source isn't exactly a compelling argument tbh

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#208

Post by cbolton »

nerdsniper wrote: post #133
himata4113 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part that gets me about anthropic red lines is "of Americans", okay so the rest of the civilized world is up for grabs then? It's okay to destabalize allies with sabotaged tests (in machine learning) and data exfiltration outside America? What gets me the most is that they claim that the model should follow the https://www.anthropic.com/constitution and they claim that it's embedded into the model. However, syste…

> The part that gets me about anthropic red lines is "of Americans", okay so the rest of the civilized world is up for grabs then? It's okay to destabalize allies with sabotaged tests (in machine learning) and data exfiltration outside America? Regardless of Anthropic's "moral" position (inasmuch as a corporation can even have morals) against spying on non-Americans, they would have no way to enforce that limitation…

They can include these limitations in a contract which can be enforced like any contract.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#209

Post by itake »

hypfer wrote: post #197
itake wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ideally, the software produced should include the latest security patches. If the model prefers a version of Ruby or node with an RCE, I guess you can burn tokens to teach the model how to avoid the introducing the vulnerability into your code? That feels quite tedious and token inefficient..

I'm sorry, but.. are you being serious? Yes. Yes. The only way one can write secure software is by always using the latest SOTA model. Anything else is inefficient and vulnerable. I hate this platform

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46809708

Maybe you missed this article, but vercel found it quite annoying to teach AI about the latest updates in the React Framework.

I think you’re confusing my point. I’m not saying that only SOTA models can write secure software, I’m saying that the models produced today will write software that’s considered insecure by 2034 standards, thus you would require to burn more tokens in AGENTS.md or burn more of your time to hand write code.

For example, you’re more than welcome to run Windows ME if it does everything you need it to, but that doesn’t mean Windows ME is a secure environment.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#210

Post by t-3 »

trollbridge wrote: post #204
t-3 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women's suffrage was relatively nonviolent.

As was the civil rights era. The people who chose to be violent made it take longer, actually.

I don't think that's really accurate. Without the perceived threat from the militant factions, the peaceful protesters wouldn't necessarily have had political backing and support. Peaceful movements had been suppressed until that point, after all.
Post reply on HN