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

The state of open source AI

stateofopensource.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 379 posts

Re: The state of open source AI

#21

Post by Zababa »

babblingfish wrote: post #6

Speculation: open models is what will kill Anthropic and OpenAI. Hyperscalers can run the models without a licensing fee. Apple can make them smaller and put them on the device. The frontier models are an edge and a liability. They're astronomically expensive to train. Without them, their models will fade into obscurity. Their marketing depends on people believing the models are meaningfully different, as people have…

The thing about not much difference between models and the harness making them deterministic and useful is wrong. Also models have different strengths and weaknesses and some are better at almost everything by a large margin compared to others.

As for your speculation, I think it's hinging on some companies releasing models for free or no big differences between models. In a world with hyperscalers and companies training models you can quickly recreate Anthropic or OpenAI by having an hyperscaler ally with a model training company, train a good/a better model, and not release it.

Re: The state of open source AI

#22

Post by Zababa »

Alpha3031 wrote: post #14
cma wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can run the same harness on fable, opus, sonnet, and see a huge difference between them. It is true the harness is important, and openai has begun encryption its instructions to swarmed sub-agents instead of just encrypting the chain of thought, but the model is still important at this stage.

Referent of "the models are meaningfully different" reads as rather than to me, so I'm not sure why we'd be comparing Fable vs Opus/Sonnet or Sol vs Terra rather than the same against Kimi K3.

Haven't tried Kimi K3 for now but there was a huge difference between GPT 5.6/Fable and GLM 5.2/Kimi K2.7 that were previous frontier open models.

Re: The state of open source AI

#23

Post by brunooliv »

This is really insane to me.

There's nothing practical about open-source models yet that makes them even remotely comparable to closed frontier models.

All the hype around GLM, Qwen, now Kimi.... Are people really this naive that they believe these reports or, more worringly, are people NOT using these models and seeing the HUGE gap that still exists?

Take a task, any medium-sized task, decently scoped that you'd trust to give to Sonnet to finish without a hitch. Now give it to ANY open-source frontier model and watch them struggle and go in circles while failing tool calls and randomly assuming things.

Open-source is and has been amazing but its so hard to deploy reliably and at scale and there's still big problems in the underlying models with instruction following and tool calling that makes it basically unusable for production workloads at a decent price point...

Re: The state of open source AI

#24

Post by 100percentjake »

jdw64 wrote: post #7

The UI is really hard on the eyes. Personally, I think the font size is way too big, and the animation timing feels off. If this is a benchmark page and not a product page, I feel like the information should be scannable at a glance. The UX is bad.

I'm unsure what it is about AI developers seemingly not having eyeballs. The Hermes Agent website is absolutely eye-searing and the application itself resembles some sort of weird "RETVRN" greek-styled travel agent website.

https://hermes-agent.nousresearch.com/

Re: The state of open source AI

#25

Post by gen2brain »

azangru wrote: post #5
marcuskaz wrote: post #4

It appears open models were used to create this slop. That opening is so hard to understand what they are trying to say, from the font and how it's written. It took me several times rereading to even grasp. Plus the article is filled with cryptic things like: Open ships easy. Open deploys hard. What?! Is it a meta answer to "the state of open source AI" question?

From the title of a chart: > The venture-funded open-source ecosystem: total disclosed funding, USD M > Bars grow as you scroll. The bars, in fact, don't grow as you scroll. And I don't even see why they should.

On my device, bars grow as I scroll. I want your feature, being able to just scroll the static page without elements jumping around.

Re: The state of open source AI

#26

Post by foolswisdom »

brunooliv wrote: post #23

This is really insane to me. There's nothing practical about open-source models yet that makes them even remotely comparable to closed frontier models. All the hype around GLM, Qwen, now Kimi.... Are people really this naive that they believe these reports or, more worringly, are people NOT using these models and seeing the HUGE gap that still exists? Take a task, any medium-sized task, decently scoped that you'd tru…

> Take a task, any medium-sized task, decently scoped that you'd trust to give to Sonnet to finish without a hitch. Now give it to ANY open-source frontier model and watch them struggle and go in circles while failing tool calls and randomly assuming things.

Claude used to be much worse than it is now, just as bad the open weights models are. And the open weights were worse. The labs will also try to keep the lead, but at some point people start seeing real value from open models. Maybe you say they're not ready yet for medium tasks, but everyone sees the writing on the wall.

Re: The state of open source AI

#27

Post by seany »

brunooliv wrote: post #23

This is really insane to me. There's nothing practical about open-source models yet that makes them even remotely comparable to closed frontier models. All the hype around GLM, Qwen, now Kimi.... Are people really this naive that they believe these reports or, more worringly, are people NOT using these models and seeing the HUGE gap that still exists? Take a task, any medium-sized task, decently scoped that you'd tru…

If your doing things the closed models won't let you do; its the whole ball game.

Re: The state of open source AI

#29

Post by fnord77 »

babblingfish wrote: post #6

Speculation: open models is what will kill Anthropic and OpenAI. Hyperscalers can run the models without a licensing fee. Apple can make them smaller and put them on the device. The frontier models are an edge and a liability. They're astronomically expensive to train. Without them, their models will fade into obscurity. Their marketing depends on people believing the models are meaningfully different, as people have…

Just like opensource search engines killed google

oh wait

Re: The state of open source AI

#30

Post by jdw64 »

100percentjake wrote: post #24
jdw64 wrote: post #7

The UI is really hard on the eyes. Personally, I think the font size is way too big, and the animation timing feels off. If this is a benchmark page and not a product page, I feel like the information should be scannable at a glance. The UX is bad.

I'm unsure what it is about AI developers seemingly not having eyeballs. The Hermes Agent website is absolutely eye-searing and the application itself resembles some sort of weird "RETVRN" greek-styled travel agent website. https://hermes-agent.nousresearch.com/

I agree 1000%, Mr. Jake.
Post reply on HN