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

Protect your right to run local AI

righttointelligence.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 222 posts

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#211

Post by tjwebbnorfolk »

snootypoot wrote: post #37
tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's gpt-oss from OpenAI, gemma from Google, phi from Microsoft, granite from IBM, nemotron from NVIDIA, Ornith from DeepReinforce, Olmo from the Allen Institute. Aside from that you're 100% correct.

compared to the chinese models those are all garbage. its almost as if there is a minimum effort being made just to later say "see, we werent always for the closed models, its just that the open stuff was so far behind". or maybe they think that an environment full of terrible models will push everyone harder into the closed stuff.

Nemotron Ultra is extremely competitive. gemma4 beats many 200B+ parameter models at a 31b size. gpt-oss is still a workhorse in many of my workflows despite being almost a year old now.

I'm all for more OSS models by American companies, and I think they could do much more than they are. But the perception that China is the only game in town for OSS doesn't hold up against the basic facts on the ground.

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#212

Post by tjwebbnorfolk »

wolttam wrote: post #46
tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's gpt-oss from OpenAI, gemma from Google, phi from Microsoft, granite from IBM, nemotron from NVIDIA, Ornith from DeepReinforce, Olmo from the Allen Institute. Aside from that you're 100% correct.

One of these is not like the other

Admittedly I am rather stupid, so you'll need to help me out with this one. Is one of these not a US model?

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#213

Post by tjwebbnorfolk »

nok22kon wrote: post #80
tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #28

In the US at least, repealing a law takes the same number of votes as passing a new one. I don't follow the purpose of this, unless it's to pass a constitutional amendment or something. Or maybe just to get clicks on a website. And I already have the right to local intelligence, because my GPUs are my private property, and if someone freely releases a beerware model then I can freely download it. What am I missing?

you can also freely download CP on your private property PC but I wouldn't advise it

CP = copyrighted property? I don't know what this means.

Yes, illegal things are illegal. Legal things are not illegal. It's very simple. If a "local LLM" (good luck defining that in law) were made illegal, then a petition like this would make sense. Until then, this is pointless FUD over a hypothetical that I place roughly 0.00% odds of ever happening.

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#214

Post by anuramat »

julianlam wrote: post #43
anuramat wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 80-90% efficiency wdym by that > for daily tasks which are?

What do you need a frontier model for, really.

research, refactoring, architecture

also just code-that-is-not-as-shit in general

for clearly defined stuff smaller models are fine, but at that point I'd rather write the code myself

in any case, if there's a chance a cheaper model will fuck it up, is the price diff worth gambling with your time?

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#215

Post by anuramat »

glenpierce wrote: post #20
anuramat wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 80-90% efficiency wdym by that > for daily tasks which are?

You get about 80-90% of the results for daily tasks like: getting summaries or explanations of complex material. Writing software tools for data analysis. Getting recipes for a given set of ingredients in the fridge.

> 80-90% of the results

why would I ever want 80% of the results though?

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#216

Post by LocalH »

tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #213
nok22kon wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can also freely download CP on your private property PC but I wouldn't advise it

CP = copyrighted property? I don't know what this means. Yes, illegal things are illegal. Legal things are not illegal. It's very simple. If a "local LLM" (good luck defining that in law) were made illegal, then a petition like this would make sense. Until then, this is pointless FUD over a hypothetical that I place roughly 0.00% odds of ever happening.

CP = child porn

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#217

Post by jaapz »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #155
gonzalohm wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you think Google, one of the biggest cloud providers, Microsoft, etc. are going to be onboard with local LLMs? I don't think so

They'll do local LLMs you have to pay for. Best of both worlds: your LLM processing power will be locked behind a subscription. You'll be coerced into a subscription to unlock the processing power you already have, and it'll only be usable by official Microsoft, etc implementations. They get your money, get to control you, and best of all, they don't have to run it themselves in their data centers

Have we seen this with CPU's being throttled only to have to pay a subscription for more performance? Or GPU's? Or memory? Or storage?

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#218

Post by randsorex »

dominotw wrote: post #165
windexh8er wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If neither model+1 or model-1 are providing tangible value to the business does anyone really care, though? At a certain point nobody believes Chicken Little. I get it. These models can be powerful. But will they be useful is a different question.

right. thats the real question. Are models improving meanginflully for ppl to pay a premium for latest model or are they just a commodity. i would argue that no one knows answer to that yet.

I am at 73% use on the week for all models and 2% use on the week for Fable.

Personally, I am good with the current version of Opus. It is already so strong for my uses that I can't really tell much difference with Fable.

For me, current Opus represents the model strength that can be commoditized. I am not splitting the atom that I need something much smarter.

I have gone completely risk off in the market the last month because of this. Commoditized at the low end and regulation is not going to become less of a problem as the frontier models get stronger.

I suspect 10 years from now we will look back at trillionaire Elon as an obvious tell we are the peak.

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#219

Post by windexh8er »

no-name-here wrote: post #113
windexh8er wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already are. Altman is basically begging the US to buy into OAI, that's just the start. Both OAI and Anthropic are going to have to go down this path or their financials will never work out. Open local models are where the enterprise will need to go for any of this to be cost feasible, but we can almost guarantee this will be a battle nobody using AI will have asked for. You can thank Dario and Sam for the dysto…

> Altman is basically begging the US to buy Where did you hear this? All the results I can find say the opposite that the US would buy anything.

It was national news [0].

[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/openai-proposes-handing-tru...

Re: Protect your right to run local AI

#220

Post by wolttam »

tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #212
wolttam wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of these is not like the other

Admittedly I am rather stupid, so you'll need to help me out with this one. Is one of these not a US model?

Ornith is a fine-tune/continued post training (RL) of Qwen 3.5 by Alibaba. The models didn't live up to the claims they made.
Post reply on HN