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

OpenAI: GPT 5.6 Sol price reduction (until at least Nov 21)

developers.openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 352 posts

Re: OpenAI: GPT 5.6 Sol price reduction (until at least Nov 21)

#191

Post by flexagoon »

colingauvin wrote: post #55
eigenspace wrote: post #9

The fact that AI models can be so easily distilled and replicated is such a stroke of luck. 10 or 15 years ago if one had asked me to envision a future where a private company invents artificial intelligence, I'd have thought for sure they'd have a massive moat, be very difficult to catch, and it would create an almost instant monopoly. Rather, it seems that selling intelligence might end up as a race to the bottom.…

Where is the actual evidence of distillation? I keep seeing this repeated ad nauseam but I must have somehow missed the evidence.

Why does Kimi insist its name is Claude?

Re: OpenAI: GPT 5.6 Sol price reduction (until at least Nov 21)

#192

Post by jmiskovic »

chasd00 wrote: post #129
adastra22 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This viewpoint doesn't make any sense to me. The weights + inference code are the "source code" for AI. I literally don't know what else you are demanding for the "open source" label.

> I literally don't know what else you are demanding for the "open source" label. you need to "literally" go read the definition of open source software or even ask an LLM to define it for you. Weights + inference code are not the source code they're more like the compiled binary. Making modifications to the behavior of a model with additional training is like writing a mod for minecraft. Sure, you can change things…

The vendor lock-in trap does not apply here. Users don't actually even run the original weights, they mostly use open source inference engines with open source agent harness. If AI provider decided to start charging, a) released models would not be affected, and b) people would drop it instantly and move to other models.

The actual problem is that we know nothing about the training set of any open-weights model. They could be intentionally biased to influence users, from political censorship to brand advertising, or general shaping of cultural norms. You run the model on own hardware not knowing if it is designed to act against you. Having whole chain open source would allow audit and reproducing the results.

Re: OpenAI: GPT 5.6 Sol price reduction (until at least Nov 21)

#193

Post by nonethewiser »

eigenspace wrote: post #9

The fact that AI models can be so easily distilled and replicated is such a stroke of luck. 10 or 15 years ago if one had asked me to envision a future where a private company invents artificial intelligence, I'd have thought for sure they'd have a massive moat, be very difficult to catch, and it would create an almost instant monopoly. Rather, it seems that selling intelligence might end up as a race to the bottom.…

I wouldn’t quite call it a “race to the bottom” because the costs to produce the models aren’t actually decreasing.

Re: OpenAI: GPT 5.6 Sol price reduction (until at least Nov 21)

#195

Post by Paradigma11 »

flexagoon wrote: post #191
colingauvin wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the actual evidence of distillation? I keep seeing this repeated ad nauseam but I must have somehow missed the evidence.

Why does Kimi insist its name is Claude?

Please elaborate the mechanisms by which a LLM would know what model it is.

Re: OpenAI: GPT 5.6 Sol price reduction (until at least Nov 21)

#196

Post by lostmsu »

Ringz wrote: post #122

The price difference to Deepseek models (deepseek-v4-flash, deepseek-v4-pro and deepseek-v4-flash-vision-exp) is still significant while the performance difference is not.

Performance difference it large by all benchmarks. DeepSeek fell behind. It's Kimi K3 or GLM-5.3 now.

Re: OpenAI: GPT 5.6 Sol price reduction (until at least Nov 21)

#197

Post by MeetingsBrowser »

kzrdude wrote: post #170
kingstnap wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think of LLMs as programs. The weights and inference code are very much a binary. While the training code and data are the true source. Since if you want to robustly modify the LLM that's actually what you need. But since "compilation" (training) is extremely compute intensive this isn't something accessible to anyone without an entire datacenter. Anyway semantics aside having the binary is still infinitely be…

I agree. But models in difference to compiled binaries, are useful as just weights and can be further refined and post-trained, at least. I don't know LLM theory well enough to say if there's some secret sauce they can hold back that makes training ineffective. Less effective I'm sure, we don't have access to their smart training schemes, but post-training should always be possible IIUC.

At the risk of taking the analogy too far, I would treat refining like modifying a dynamic library. You can technically modify behavior, but only in a very coarse way.

post-training is like writing a wrapper around the binary. It is closer to building on top of than truly modifying, in that you can tailor things to your needs slightly but cannot make fundamental changes to the underlying thing.

Re: OpenAI: GPT 5.6 Sol price reduction (until at least Nov 21)

#198

Post by v64 »

colingauvin wrote: post #55
eigenspace wrote: post #9

The fact that AI models can be so easily distilled and replicated is such a stroke of luck. 10 or 15 years ago if one had asked me to envision a future where a private company invents artificial intelligence, I'd have thought for sure they'd have a massive moat, be very difficult to catch, and it would create an almost instant monopoly. Rather, it seems that selling intelligence might end up as a race to the bottom.…

Where is the actual evidence of distillation? I keep seeing this repeated ad nauseam but I must have somehow missed the evidence.

The evidence is Anthropic's own reporting [1]. You may doubt that they're telling the truth, but that's what they're reporting.

[1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist...

Re: OpenAI: GPT 5.6 Sol price reduction (until at least Nov 21)

#199

Post by qwerpy »

eigenspace wrote: post #181
rootusrootus wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope it's a good bit cheaper than that, I pay close to $400/mo for electricity and I'm in no way interested in paying anything like that for AI.

Jeeze, what are you doing that uses so much electricity? I live in Germany where people won't stop whining about electricity prices, and I pay 75€/mo.

Easy to get there without doing anything abnormal, 2 EVs and a large 5 bedroom house that gets air conditioned / heated, in a location that does time of use pricing. My bill is closer to $200/mo but if I didn’t have solar & battery it’d be in the $400 range.

Re: OpenAI: GPT 5.6 Sol price reduction (until at least Nov 21)

#200

Post by htrp »

kzrdude wrote: post #166
state_less wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something startling about how (relatively) simple these networks are and yet how powerful they are. The main ingredient the AI darlings are using is vast amounts of compute and data. I don't want to take away anything from what the researchers came up with, but I suspect even they are surprised at how capable some of these models have become.

I'm unnerved by how alphazero is more complicated than the "intelligent llms"; it has at least multiple heads and MCTS, a search algorithm. The LLMs seem to just be monolithic (if complicated) architectures where tokens go in the bottom and tokens are spit out at the top.

imagine what would happen if you gave it MCTS and the data that LLMs were trained on
Post reply on HN