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

The gap between open weights LLMs and closed source LLMs

blog.doubleword.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 264 posts

Re: The gap between open weights LLMs and closed source LLMs

#11

Post by fridder »

profsummergig wrote: post #5

IMHO, the biggest problem with the future of open weights models is that currently, open weights models are the result of philanthropy by some private org. (e.g. DeepSeek). The spigot can be turned off at any time. Until there's some sort of "community owned hardware", open weights models are always at risk of being discontinued.

We need a SETI@Home but for model training

Re: The gap between open weights LLMs and closed source LLMs

#12

Post by recursive »

profsummergig wrote: post #5

IMHO, the biggest problem with the future of open weights models is that currently, open weights models are the result of philanthropy by some private org. (e.g. DeepSeek). The spigot can be turned off at any time. Until there's some sort of "community owned hardware", open weights models are always at risk of being discontinued.

This seems backwards. Access to Fable can be removed. I don't see how an open weight model can ever be put back into the bag though.

Re: The gap between open weights LLMs and closed source LLMs

#14

Post by gehsty »

Interesting to consider this inline with recent us export bans, could the US be squandering its lead by giving the open source, largely Chinese labs catch up (in terms of model quality available to masses), will US labs be able to maintain the lead without users being able to use their latest models?

Re: The gap between open weights LLMs and closed source LLMs

#15

Post by kamranjon »

fridder wrote: post #11
profsummergig wrote: post #5

IMHO, the biggest problem with the future of open weights models is that currently, open weights models are the result of philanthropy by some private org. (e.g. DeepSeek). The spigot can be turned off at any time. Until there's some sort of "community owned hardware", open weights models are always at risk of being discontinued.

We need a SETI@Home but for model training

Have been thinking about this a lot lately.

Re: The gap between open weights LLMs and closed source LLMs

#17

Post by 0x3f »

fridder wrote: post #11
profsummergig wrote: post #5

IMHO, the biggest problem with the future of open weights models is that currently, open weights models are the result of philanthropy by some private org. (e.g. DeepSeek). The spigot can be turned off at any time. Until there's some sort of "community owned hardware", open weights models are always at risk of being discontinued.

We need a SETI@Home but for model training

Consumer hardware over the internet is not really suitable for this, AFAIK.

Re: The gap between open weights LLMs and closed source LLMs

#18

Post by felooboolooomba »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #9
profsummergig wrote: post #5

IMHO, the biggest problem with the future of open weights models is that currently, open weights models are the result of philanthropy by some private org. (e.g. DeepSeek). The spigot can be turned off at any time. Until there's some sort of "community owned hardware", open weights models are always at risk of being discontinued.

Yeah, but the biggest plus for open models is that they can never be taken away. In other words, whatever capabilities they reach (even if there will never be another model), those stay forever. That can't be said for API-based models where a provider can sunset models whenever they feel like (i.e. gpt5-mini will soon be gone, and replaced by a more expensive 5.4-mini, same for goog, etc). And there will always be in…

> they can never be taken away

Your right to 3d print whatever you want is about to be taken away (in California).

What software you can run on your computer can already be restricted.

Absolutely everything can be taken away. The simplest way to remove open models is probably to declare them a tool that terrorists could use. Crazy? Yes, the world is totally crazy these days.

Re: The gap between open weights LLMs and closed source LLMs

#19

Post by ForHackernews »

profsummergig wrote: post #5

IMHO, the biggest problem with the future of open weights models is that currently, open weights models are the result of philanthropy by some private org. (e.g. DeepSeek). The spigot can be turned off at any time. Until there's some sort of "community owned hardware", open weights models are always at risk of being discontinued.

It's not pure philanthropy: https://gwern.net/complement

Re: The gap between open weights LLMs and closed source LLMs

#20

Post by Smaug123 »

recursive wrote: post #12
profsummergig wrote: post #5

IMHO, the biggest problem with the future of open weights models is that currently, open weights models are the result of philanthropy by some private org. (e.g. DeepSeek). The spigot can be turned off at any time. Until there's some sort of "community owned hardware", open weights models are always at risk of being discontinued.

This seems backwards. Access to Fable can be removed. I don't see how an open weight model can ever be put back into the bag though.

The model itself, sure; the comment is about the production of more advanced models (to keep open weights near the frontier).
Post reply on HN