Live data from Hacker News

The arguments against open source AI are bad

tombedor.dev

181–190 of 228 posts

Re: The arguments against open source AI are bad

#181
post #69

This is not "open source" AI. Photoshop source code + OSI license = open source Photoshop binary = open weight Photoshop SAAS web app = closed model like GPT, Opus/Fable etc. There is nothing "open source" about the Chinese models in question. All they're doing is allowing you to run their binary yourself instead of through their API. If you want actual open source then you would need to look at like OLMo 3 https://a…

[dead]

Re: The arguments against open source AI are bad

#182
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equating an open weight model to a closed source binary is ludicrous. An open weight model can be fine tuned, for example. How easy is it to modify a closed source binary for your purposes?

I see you didn't grow up cracking apps and games, this is quite easy with a hex editor and bintools. Well, until codesigning came along, but that doesn't seem relevant to this analogy.

[deleted]

Re: The arguments against open source AI are bad

#183

The reason why anyone argues against local and free AI is because they want corporations to have control over the general population. America is a corporate hellhole.

> The reason why … If someone read the OP article and came away presuming there are no legitimate other reasons why reasonable people have safety concerns [1] it seems to show the article did the opposite of informing people about such concerns. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49029303

The fear of the general populace is itself a propaganda campaign

In the agricultural era, which was the most violent time in human history, we accepted any beggars that came to our front door. Now we live in the safest time in human history and were so terrified of the masses that we disempower them completely

Re: The arguments against open source AI are bad

#184
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the distinction is important though, because the OP throws in the point about how "if you think the Chinese models have political propaganda baked in, go ahead and remove it, it's open source!". it is not at all obvious to me that having the model weights available will make this sort of retraining easy or even possible, but framing them as "open source" makes the analogy with open source software an easy one to get…

> the distinction is important though Only to nerds. Of which I am one, so I'm not trying to be personally dismissive here. But I'd argue the average person only really cares about the legal aspects of duplication (and not their ability to modify things) both when it comes to open source software and open weight LLMs. > it is not at all obvious to me that having the model weights available will make this sort of retr…

> But I'd argue the average person only really cares about the legal aspects of duplication (and not their ability to modify things) both when it comes to open source software and open weight LLMs.

The average person does not know the term "open source" to begin with, and is 100% not going to run an open source weight model on their computer. If they are, they will call them "free" models. I think the distinction is only going to enter the periphery of nerds.

Re: The arguments against open source AI are bad

#185
post #69

This is not "open source" AI. Photoshop source code + OSI license = open source Photoshop binary = open weight Photoshop SAAS web app = closed model like GPT, Opus/Fable etc. There is nothing "open source" about the Chinese models in question. All they're doing is allowing you to run their binary yourself instead of through their API. If you want actual open source then you would need to look at like OLMo 3 https://a…

The two aren't comparable.

You can't reconstruct the same LLM weights even with the same training data.

You can fine tune an open weights model.

Much of the value in modern LLMs is in the RL envrionments, not the pre-training data. That is a very different piece of software to an LLM, and the LLM weights are useful without it.

Re: The arguments against open source AI are bad

#186
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's to stop bad actors from fine tuning open weights to run fully automated genius-level scams personally targeting basically everybody? You mean like ChatGPT hacking Hugging Face? Obviously nothing can stop the closed weights providers from doing "genius-level scams" and in addition you won't know how they did it and what models were used. In short, only a good guy with open weights can stop the bad guys with c…

The OpenAI model that broke out of its sandbox and hacked HuggingFace was running without guardrails. To quote the OpenAI post[1]: These deployment safeguards were intentionally not enabled during this evaluation because it was aimed at testing cyber vulnerabilities. At least OpenAI will make an attempt to fix their sandboxes, and will not give the public access to models without guardrails. Open weight models on the…

There's nothing stopping you using OpenAI models for scam call centers now. OpenAI themselves reported on similar use in February: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/dating-scams-fake...

Re: The arguments against open source AI are bad

#187
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equating an open weight model to a closed source binary is ludicrous. An open weight model can be fine tuned, for example. How easy is it to modify a closed source binary for your purposes?

I see you didn't grow up cracking apps and games, this is quite easy with a hex editor and bintools. Well, until codesigning came along, but that doesn't seem relevant to this analogy.

Cracking games is and was illegal. Fine tuning an open weight model isn’t. Well, not yet anyway

Re: The arguments against open source AI are bad

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be stopped, if there were a social movement large enough to make AI a taboo.

Yeah, like those 5g masts destroyed around the world because they spread covid. Loonies.

A lot of people have responded with flippant remarks because they have no serious rebuttal.

Re: The arguments against open source AI are bad

#189
post #69

This is not "open source" AI. Photoshop source code + OSI license = open source Photoshop binary = open weight Photoshop SAAS web app = closed model like GPT, Opus/Fable etc. There is nothing "open source" about the Chinese models in question. All they're doing is allowing you to run their binary yourself instead of through their API. If you want actual open source then you would need to look at like OLMo 3 https://a…

Anyone got a starters guide for setting up an open source LLM? I'm pretty new to AI, but technical. Im looking to setup my own open source LLM on my workstation to help me code if its possible. Been using Claude and I tried opencode recently.

Unless you have a LOT of VRAM (>16gb), you’ll want to use a 2, 3, or 4 bit quantization of qwen3.6-35b-a3b. Ollama is a quick way to try this out and see what perf you can get, tho you’ll want to move to a better tool (vLLM, llama.cpp, etc) if you end up using it seriously.

Use pi.dev as your agent harness, and point it at ollama or whatever you’re running your model in.

Since qwen3.6-35b-a3b is a “MoE” model (indicated by the a3b part), you can get away with a lot less VRAM and a slower GPU. For me, 35b-a3b performs about as well as a 12b “dense” model. You’ll still need enough RAM+VRAM to hold the entire model - otherwise it’ll be super slow as it loads pieces of the model off disk for every token. Loading from RAM to VRAM is slower than having the whole thing in VRAM but better than involving your ssd.

Re: The arguments against open source AI are bad

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you didn't grow up cracking apps and games, this is quite easy with a hex editor and bintools. Well, until codesigning came along, but that doesn't seem relevant to this analogy.

Cracking games is and was illegal. Fine tuning an open weight model isn’t. Well, not yet anyway

> Cracking games is and was illegal.

Only distribution.

Post reply on HN