Live data from Hacker News

The state of open source AI

stateofopensource.ai

41–50 of 379 posts

Re: The state of open source AI

#41
post #3

Maybe its the wildfire smoke in my eyes, but that font choice feels aggressive.

It's their own fonts: Mozilla Headline and Mozilla Text.

No idea why they'd be using the display font for the abstract though, that kind of defeats the whole purpose. It's supposed to be quirky and bold, but used far more sparsingly.

Re: The state of open source AI

#42
post #32

"Open won"... to be fair cause "google paid it".

I think the fact that Mozilla survival model ultimately depends on Google's money means Google is keeping a corpse propped up just to have a defense argument that a browser competitor still exists, so they don't get hit with monopoly regulations.

Re: The state of open source AI

#43

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…

Even in the world where all models are basically equivalent (a thesis I don’t buy, but will grant you for arguments sake) - I believe there is much more to the AI business than just training and running models.

It’s a very new set of technologies, and understanding what is useful to customers and what isn’t is the whole game. Call it, product taste. There were a million cell phones before the iPhone took over the world. Why iPhone? Product taste. There are a million startups, and only a select few become unicorns. Why? Product taste.

Re: The state of open source AI

#44
post #42
post #32

"Open won"... to be fair cause "google paid it".

I think the fact that Mozilla survival model ultimately depends on Google's money means Google is keeping a corpse propped up just to have a defense argument that a browser competitor still exists, so they don't get hit with monopoly regulations.

Particularly in this day in age when the FF market share is down to low single digits

Re: The state of open source AI

#45
Exactly 4 months ago, the marketshare on openrouter was 60%-40% in favor of closed models. Now it's 63%-37% in favor of open models. On March 19th, the open models processed 888B tokens in aggregate, yesterday, they processed 4.19T tokens in aggregate. That's almost 5x in 4 months! I can't think of the right intensifier to describe this level of growth.

If you are looking for more details (as inferred by openrouter data), I built a dashboard that updates daily: https://dirac.run/labs-market-share

Re: The state of open source AI

#46
post #29

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

I don’t even know the names of any open source search engines, but the open source models perform decently on various benchmarks and in personal experience.

Was it ever even a claim that open source search engines were trying to outperform google, let alone kill it?

Re: The state of open source AI

#47

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…

Even in the world where all models are basically equivalent (a thesis I don’t buy, but will grant you for arguments sake) - I believe there is much more to the AI business than just training and running models. It’s a very new set of technologies, and understanding what is useful to customers and what isn’t is the whole game. Call it, product taste. There were a million cell phones before the iPhone took over the wor…

>There were a million cell phones before the iPhone took over the world.

You have tripped yourself up there.

iPhone took over as it introduced something innovative over standard phones, but then Open Source (Android) matched the multi-touch and software differences and Apple's branding, lock-in and design etc have managed to keep it as a big player in wealthier countries. IPhone also came on the back of the massive iPod success.

ChatGPT launched the same innovation vs Google Search, but just like Android Opensource AI is moving fast now.

Android has 72.7% market share at present, Open Source AI will do the same unless the frontier labs can continue to do something new.

The frontier labs are saddled with enormous investor and other debts. How long they can keep innovating by spending so much on R&D and paying there staff very high wages remains to be seen.

Once investors cash out via an IPO, the companies are back down to earth and playing in the real world again.

Re: The state of open source AI

#48
post #33

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…

Open models are probably also comparatively astronomically expensive to train - just less so than the frontier models because they’re somewhat smaller, +/- the creators are more incentivised to focus on getting more from less compute because they’re have to, +/- they rely on distillation of the frontier models and this is more efficient. But efficiencies aside; creation of open models still requires a lot of money an…

Yes, the problem with comparing open models to open source is that open source requires humans to volunteer their time. Open models requires humans to volunteer their money.

These two types of contributions have very different behavioral profiles, and it doesn't obviously follow that the historical success of getting people to collaborate socially on building software for fun and for the benefit of the community will translate in any meaningful way to the necessity of being able to raise enormous amounts of money to pay for enormous amounts of electricity.

Re: The state of open source AI

#49

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…

Open models are 4k TV (or maybe 1080p tv now and 4k TV soon) and SOTA frontier models are 8k TV. Can I or the average user tell the difference? Not really. Would they pay for that difference? Not a chance. Our entire economy is teetering on some future hope that this fragile and immaterial difference will pay off, when the reality is that LLMs are a race to the bottom and eventual razor thin margins. Maybe a tiny vocal subset of programmers can use it for work and make paying for it worth it to them, but that can't prop up an entire economy, especially when said programmers are phased out, jobless, and replaced by AI with each better iteration...
Post reply on HN