Live data from Hacker News

There is minimal downside to switching to open models

marble.onl

231–240 of 351 posts

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#231

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.

"The situation for free speech in Europe is even worse than I thought" https://eternallyradicalidea.com/p/the-situation-for-free-sp...

Same old tired arguments from Americans about how if you don't let fascists have free speech, it's not really free speech.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Hosting anything in EU must cover redtape and carbon taxes in electricity bill.

That seems pretty unsubstantiated. Hetzner proves that EU data center != expensive.

Low carbon does not equal expensive, either. Solar is the cheapest power generation method. Solar plus grid scale batteries is in the same cost ballpark as natural gas.

There’s nothing about data centers that is inherently a high carbon business. It’s only a high carbon business in places like the US where political leadership purposefully fights against renewable energy projects that private businesses want to undertake on their own dime.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#233
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Output quality immediately comes to mind, of course. Models are converging, but they converge in bands, and frontier is frontier. I would not like to have any workflows in any area of my business where output is generated by an assortment of models from different providers. For trivial, mundane tasks that might be fine, but it certainly doesn't apply across the board.

Not caring about providers doesn't mean not caring about models.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The situation for free speech in Europe is even worse than I thought" https://eternallyradicalidea.com/p/the-situation-for-free-sp...

Same old tired arguments from Americans about how if you don't let fascists have free speech, it's not really free speech.

Who controls the definition of "fascist"?

In any case, practically speaking, censorship helped the rise of the Nazis: https://www.fire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/would...

You can see far-right parties surging across Europe. Speech restriction isn't just authoritarian, it's also counterproductive.

As an American I am actually quite worried about Europe's far right. Those guys are very scary, and it's creepy the way they have been able to influence the right here in the US. The MAGA movement was far more multicultural back in the 2010s, before Europe's far right was able to influence it with their ethnic cleansing and pogrom fantasies.

If you're in a hole, maybe stop digging?

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/... The age old joke; A Russian and an American are drinking at a bar The Russian says "I'm impressed by american propaganda. It's so subtle but effective." The american responds "What are you talking about, we don't do propaganda."

I'm of the opinion that there is considerably more wailing about US government propaganda than actual US government propaganda. People who reference supposed US government propaganda rarely provide much in the way of concrete examples. Probably because there are legal restrictions on covert propaganda in the US: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/covert_propaganda To be clear, I'm happy to grant that: * The Pentagon won…

> Many Europeans believe ...

> ... misinformation (likely Ukrainian-origin) ...

Your post is also "a half-baked, un-falsifiable conspiracy theory with little supporting evidence" ;)

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#236

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.

I can immediately tell you're not arguing in "good faith" when you resort to "mean tweets".

The numbers commonly being reporting include stalkers, criminals, etc.

You don't get arrested for being politically incorrect in the UK. You get arrested for posting something threatening, harassing, inciteful, or grossly indecent. Also, being arrested and being charged are two completely separate things.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#237
post #41

I’ve been wanting to get better acquainted with local inference but I don’t have the hardware, which has made me think about something I haven’t seen discussed, which is local collaboratives. The economics makes it seem like a group of people joining together to run good hardware and an open model might make sense, but I haven’t seen anything like this mentioned. Have I been missing it? I think it would be pretty nea…

The reason you don't see more of this is because everyone does the math, realizes it's not a good deal, and then gives up on the idea. There's a post at the top of /r/localllama about this exact math right now: https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1ubrcwj/tokenom... TL;DR: Running GLM 5.2 is going to cost about $20K minimum, and that's going to be painfully slow compared to the cloud hosted versions. Even the…

.. conversely, all the cloud LLMs are being subsidized by their investors in addition to massive economies of scale.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#238
post #227
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would quantize the model. That'd make it cheaper to run, and have slightly worse output but it would still generate outputs with a similar feel, derived from a compressed version of the same knowledge base etc. They wouldn't even need to do this uniformly, quantized versions of the model could be routed only a subset of the requests. They could do this to nerf the old model, or more likely just to give themselve…

And guess what all the providers of open models do: They quantize, badly.

This is why you pay premium for trusted providers, who are verified to not quantize

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm of the opinion that there is considerably more wailing about US government propaganda than actual US government propaganda. People who reference supposed US government propaganda rarely provide much in the way of concrete examples. Probably because there are legal restrictions on covert propaganda in the US: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/covert_propaganda To be clear, I'm happy to grant that: * The Pentagon won…

> Many Europeans believe ... > ... misinformation (likely Ukrainian-origin) ... Your post is also "a half-baked, un-falsifiable conspiracy theory with little supporting evidence" ;)

Can you point me to any sort of Ukrainian law which would prohibit this type of info op? See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_of_Kyiv

If the US was attacked the way Ukraine was attacked, and foreign intervention was key to our survival as a nation, I expect the Pentagon would deploy foreign info ops in that situation. That doesn't seem like a heavy lift to me.

Occam's Razor: If something is a core/essential national interest, it's reasonable to expect a government to pull out all the stops. But governments are fairly ineffectual for the most part. Everyone saw how the USG mishandled e.g. COVID, mishandled the war with Iran, yet we expect the USG to be wizards at covert propaganda? It doesn't really track. I'm sure we are doing covert propaganda here and there, and we would ramp it up in an emergency.

Anyways, if you want to point to specific content you suspect as USG propaganda, be my guest. My point is, the fact that people rarely do this seems evidence against widespread USG propaganda. "They don't point it out because the propaganda is too good" has a suspicious un-falsifiable quality to it.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/feb/... The age old joke; A Russian and an American are drinking at a bar The Russian says "I'm impressed by american propaganda. It's so subtle but effective." The american responds "What are you talking about, we don't do propaganda."

I'm of the opinion that there is considerably more wailing about US government propaganda than actual US government propaganda. People who reference supposed US government propaganda rarely provide much in the way of concrete examples. Probably because there are legal restrictions on covert propaganda in the US: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/covert_propaganda To be clear, I'm happy to grant that: * The Pentagon won…

"UN Security Council action" is a broad term that can include deployment of international UN-led military forces, as in the Korean War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Command

A few years prior to the Budapest Memorandum, the UN Security Council had authorized military action to liberate Kuwait. 42 countries participated in the coalition that drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Gulf_War

The expectation at the time was clearly more than just "we'll bring it up at the UN for dicussion". The current weaseling over the exact wording looks weak and pathetic, and has a certain flavor of propaganda that tries to convince everyone of something that's not quite true. The fact remains that the US strong-armed Ukraine out of nuclear weapons, and when Ukraine was eventually invaded, tried to strong-arm Ukraine into surrender. This reflects very poorly on the US.

Post reply on HN