41–50 of 337 posts
Ok, great, so Microsoft believes in open weight models. So... uhh, why not release a few?
They did. Check out the Phi models (e.g., https://huggingface.co/microsoft/phi-4 ).
I agree with the message, but I'm not going to accept it from this particular crowd. Microsoft, NVIDIA, Meta, Palantir, IBM...They have all been actively hostile to open source for decades, and have a history of embracing it only when convenient and profitable. Microsoft benefited from its close partnership with OpenAI for years right up until it went sour. Where was this enthusiasm for open weights then? Meta was de…
I agree with the message, but I'm not going to accept it from this particular crowd. Microsoft, NVIDIA, Meta, Palantir, IBM...They have all been actively hostile to open source for decades, and have a history of embracing it only when convenient and profitable. Microsoft benefited from its close partnership with OpenAI for years right up until it went sour. Where was this enthusiasm for open weights then? Meta was de…
I'm finding the list of signatories on this letter really interesting and somewhat confusing, looking purely through the lens of economic interest. It makes sense to see Meta, the startups, and the VC firms on this list. And it makes sense to see OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google all missing. Microsoft is somewhat unexpected to me. I don't think of them as having a focus on open weight models (no more than Google), and t…
[flagged]
I don't personally have a horse in this race, but if you want to accurately predict the next step: Start with the outcome you believe will be the most in line with the spirit and traditions of the open source community. This is precisely what won't happen. It won't necessarily be the inverse. It could be, of course, but it's also likely to be a compromise between the two. For a topical example: The companies doing "A…
Ideology? I think this administration is the least captured by ideology in the last few decades. It's mostly brazen self-interest, for both entertainment & profit.
I'm finding the list of signatories on this letter really interesting and somewhat confusing, looking purely through the lens of economic interest. It makes sense to see Meta, the startups, and the VC firms on this list. And it makes sense to see OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google all missing. Microsoft is somewhat unexpected to me. I don't think of them as having a focus on open weight models (no more than Google), and t…
(a) sellers of hardware (Nvidia, IBM) and those who rent hardware out to others (Amazon, Microsoft)
They want open models because they don't have to license it to run it on their hardware, so they can offer lower cost and inspect what they are offering to clients
(b) open model creators (Arcee, Perplexity, Mistral, IBM, Microsoft)
...who would be unable to work if open-weight models are banned
(c) Software-heavy companies ( Mozilla, The Linux Foundation , ServiceNow, Microsoft, IBM, heck all of them)
...who want models that are cheap to run because that reduces the cost of running an LLM (whether you are trying to replace a software developer or just assist them, the value of a reduced cost LLM is directionally the same)
[flagged]
I'm very confused by this comment, I don't know who you're referring to.
Note: Just pointing out the comment intent and nothing else
[flagged]
It would seem as if the community either isn't doing that or is relying on the Chinese to do that.