The gap between open weights LLMs and closed source LLMs • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by roenxi » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 12:39 AM UTC

port11 wrote: post #231

roenxi wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure you haven't gotten your catastrophes crossed? Ozone depletion was a different crisis and people did enact change, the ozone hole has been closing fairly steadily. Wikipedia [0] thinks the prospects for the ozone layer are pretty good. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Prospects_of_o...

Some climate models expect permafrost decay and/or mere GHG rise to erode the ozone layer. It’s not 1:1 proven, but there’s indication that in a post-4C world (with feedback loops), we might slowly lose our protection against the sun’s radiation. I don’t recommend getting into the literature, it’s… depressing. (Your point about the global, concerted effort to limit the “holes” in the ozone layer reminds me that we ca…

I'm quite happy to read literature, typically what happens when I do is I come away with the impression everything is pretty good. If you've found something that is actually going to be a problem then you're the first person in something like 5 years and I'd like to know about it. What models are you referring to?

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

#242

Post by nmfisher » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 1:52 AM UTC

mkozlows wrote: post #221

nmfisher wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those companies are created by the Chinese government. They're obviously subject to the Chinese government, whose whims may change at any given moment, but as we're seeing at the moment, so are the American companies. And while I don't have a very positive view of the Chinese government, last I checked, they haven't been dropping bombs on innocent schoolchildren recently.

Go to chat.z.ai right now and ask it about what happened in Tiananmen Square. Do you think it's good for the world if software is written by the model that answers that question that way?

It makes no difference to me if a coding model has an opinion about Tiananmen Square, Americans bombing schoolgirls in Iran, how many genders there are, or anything else other than designing and writing code.

A coding model is a tool, as long as it follows its user's instructions for building software I don't really care what opinion it spits out about world history.

Yes, it is important to ensure that aren't hidden guardrails that are affecting its ability to perform its function. But the great thing about open weight models is that you can actually evaluate this rigorously, and retrain to remove any prejudices you don't like.

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

#243

Post by sinuhe69 » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 2:22 AM UTC

trollbridge wrote: post #237

sinuhe69 wrote: post #172

At this point, I think open weights vs proprietary models is a misnomer. First, we can not be sure the next release will remain open weights as Qwen 3.7 has showed. And second, they are all Chinese models. So instead of open weights, perhaps Chinese AI models is a better word choice.

It's not China's fault they're the only country releasing open weights. Qwen has always alternated having an open release followed by a "max" release that isn't open weights.

Although I can see that some people perceive “China’s model“ as a bad connotation, it’s simply the truth. So face it.

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

#244

Post by sinatra » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 4:19 AM UTC

mft_ wrote: post #168

linzhangrun wrote: post #110

USA, a country that known for the land of freedom, is now restricting frontier models to the point where non-Americans cannot even use them. China, a "authoritarian state" country, "the antonym of freedom", with a software industry that is especially capitalist, has produced all the competitive open-weight models. It really is IRONIC. Disclosure: I am Chinese, and I understand this strategy comes from being behind, u…

Your comparison falls apart in the first few words: > USA, a country that known for the land of freedom The US might say it's the land of freedom, but it's been playing the game of economic protectionism for centuries. This is just the latest example.

> it's been playing the game of economic protectionism for centuries.

Equal to or more than other major countries? If so, can you show me anything supporting your claim?

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

#245

Post by port11 » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 6:06 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #241

port11 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some climate models expect permafrost decay and/or mere GHG rise to erode the ozone layer. It’s not 1:1 proven, but there’s indication that in a post-4C world (with feedback loops), we might slowly lose our protection against the sun’s radiation. I don’t recommend getting into the literature, it’s… depressing. (Your point about the global, concerted effort to limit the “holes” in the ozone layer reminds me that we ca…

I'm quite happy to read literature, typically what happens when I do is I come away with the impression everything is pretty good. If you've found something that is actually going to be a problem then you're the first person in something like 5 years and I'd like to know about it. What models are you referring to?

E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion, specifically the Global Warming section:

> The same CO2 radiative forcing that produces global warming is expected to cool the stratosphere. This cooling, in turn, is expected to produce a relative increase in ozone (O3) depletion in polar areas and the frequency of ozone holes.

Mark Lynas was my introduction to the matter. I agree with you (and the author) that things were pretty good, but I think my final years (and those of my family) won’t be very pleasant.

Hydrogen sulfide is the other ozone killer the author references, in case the oceans become anoxic and the “wrong” kind of bacteria proliferate.

Without the ozone layer’s protection, even short-term exposure to the sun would cause severe sunburn within minutes and cause DNA damage. It would also wipe out food production at scale. Not a good world to live in.

The sulfide issue is modelled after this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253350203_Role_of_h... -> I’m not sure how up to date it remains.

I think the cooling-as-a-problem model was the IPCC’s polar stratospheric clouds proposal, but I don’t remember 100%.

The man wrote pretty decent books, but it’s hard to tell how cataclysmic it all really is vs. newer science that came up since then.

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

#246

Post by jason_oster » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 7:25 AM UTC

felooboolooomba wrote: post #18

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

What are they going to do? Fine me for not updating my printer's firmware?

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

#247

Post by roenxi » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 7:55 AM UTC

port11 wrote: post #245

roenxi wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm quite happy to read literature, typically what happens when I do is I come away with the impression everything is pretty good. If you've found something that is actually going to be a problem then you're the first person in something like 5 years and I'd like to know about it. What models are you referring to?

E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion , specifically the Global Warming section: > The same CO2 radiative forcing that produces global warming is expected to cool the stratosphere. This cooling, in turn, is expected to produce a relative increase in ozone (O3) depletion in polar areas and the frequency of ozone holes. Mark Lynas was my introduction to the matter. I agree with you (and the author) that th…

I'm not seeing any predictions here that there is a problem with the ozone layer. The citation for the wiki quote you include seems to be saying that they still expect improvements in the ozone layer vs the present because we have made changes that should lead to the ozone hole repairing itself. This is also the overall conclusion that the Wiki article appears to support too. The sulfide modelling paper is saying they have expect problems at sulfer emissions far greater than currently anticipated.

I'd say that the reason nobody is doing anything is there does not seem to be a threat being detected. There are scarier problems to work through (mainly war and access to energy).

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

#248

Post by nerdyadventurer » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 12:12 PM UTC

data-ottawa wrote: post #230

bradishungry wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“China can only copy the US” is a very short sighted and uninformed opinion. there is more coming out of china than just new ways to distill models

I don’t know how anyone can look at the innovation going on at DeepSeek and come to the conclusion that China can only copy. Distillation and copying are how they’ve bootstrapped their models, but that feels not so different than Anthropic and Meta torrenting millions of pirated books. The Chinese labs are solving problems for a different set of constraints.

Problem is even today many people still have this colonial mindset, that some are superior in every aspect than others, which is a shame. Many of the current geopolitical problems stem from this.

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

#249

Post by mft_ » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 1:47 PM UTC

_pdp_ wrote: post #209

mft_ wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we have different definitions of 'normie'. I'm talking about people who aren't in IT, and who are maybe just learning to use LLMs for aspects of their daily work. These people only know of the big three models, at best - they very rarely know of the open-weight models, and would even more rarely (given their model access is likely determined at a corporate level) be able to access them.

That's my point too. If you take GLM and call it ChatGPT or Claude Opus is anyone going to notice? If you are not into agentic AI I would argue that the model type makes zero difference for day to day use because GLM 5.2 is hitting the benchmarks hard. Now for a specialised use case (narrow fields), say cyber, Mythos is possibly better.

Gotcha. Agree that it's likely that GLM 5.2 could replace Claude/GPT in many easy-to-mid-level tasks.

Given there's a (lot of?) uncertainty around the confidentiality of A/O amongst businesses even just looking at adopting Claude/GPT, it will be interesting to see to what extent the (mostly Chinese) open-weight models start to get broad usage.

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

#250

Post by mft_ » Sun, Jun 28, 2026, 1:50 PM UTC

sinatra wrote: post #244

mft_ wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comparison falls apart in the first few words: > USA, a country that known for the land of freedom The US might say it's the land of freedom, but it's been playing the game of economic protectionism for centuries. This is just the latest example.

> it's been playing the game of economic protectionism for centuries. Equal to or more than other major countries? If so, can you show me anything supporting your claim?

I wasn't making a comparison or a value judgement. We're obviously both aware that other countries (and blocs, like the EU) also play the same game.

Rather, I was simply noting that the US' "freedom" branding that the poster was referring to doesn't necessarily apply in the way they were assuming (their point was that the "free" US restricting models more than "authoritarian" China was ironic) given the US' history of economic protectionism.