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

251–260 of 264 posts

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

#251

Post by oompydoompy74 »

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.

Legality doesn’t matter as long as you use open source tools. Buy hardware that you can load your own software or firmware on. Keep backups of the software that you use. Nobody can take away an open weight model sitting on my NAS. Almost everything my family uses is self hosted. Stop depending on the government and companies to do the right thing.

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

#252

Post by port11 »

roenxi wrote: post #247
port11 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

> is expected to produce an increase in ozone depletion … and the frequency of ozone holes

Sounds bad to me. Not the worst to come out of climate change, but potentially very negative if it comes to happen. More ozone holes and more ozone depletion can’t really be spun positively.

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

#253

Post by throwitaway222 »

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

someone prompt claude or codex or something and get it done

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

#254

Post by nomel »

trollbridge wrote: post #106
nomel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that simplifies it a bit. You can't train without hardware, which is why the Chinese companies are illegally importing Nvidia cards [1]. [1] https://www.theinformation.com/articles/deepseek-using-banne...

There is significant evidence they are transitioning to Huawei and other home-grown CPUs and NPUs.

Yes, hardware is very important, which is why they're being forced to ramp up their local chips! ;)

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

#255

Post by freecodej »

veqq wrote: post #97
Bolwin wrote: post #91

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. In theory yes, but the average person can't really run the big open models. This is already happening, try to find a provider that still hosts older, especially less popular or succeeded open models. For me personally, I've…

> NovitaAI is a low cost provider who's strategy seems to be to host as many models as possible for the lowest cost possible so that OpenRouter's routing algorithm will default to them as often as possible. The problem is that they clearly don't spend much time on actually testing and configuring all of the models they provide. There's a reason they are very often the first provider to host a new model. I also suspec…

[dead]

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

#256

Post by freecodej »

Bolwin wrote: post #91
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…

> 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. In theory yes, but the average person can't really run the big open models. This is already happening, try to find a provider that still hosts older, especially less popular or succeeded open models. For me personally, I've…

[flagged]

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

#257

Post by nomel »

taffydavid wrote: post #179
nomel wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> except for some narrow use-case. I think it's entirely the opposite. For narrow use cases, like web pages and crud/GUI, the open source models don't show much of a difference.

You think Web pages, crud and gui are a narrow use case?

Yes, in the breadth of problem spaces that software covers, and in the more mechanical sense in what the AI would actually be doing with these tasks.

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

#258

Post by [deleted] »

adrian_b wrote: post #86
nomel wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that simplifies it a bit. You can't train without hardware, which is why the Chinese companies are illegally importing Nvidia cards [1]. [1] https://www.theinformation.com/articles/deepseek-using-banne...

The usefulness of the smuggled NVIDIA GPUs has greatly diminished for AI purposes, because the elimination of NVIDIA as a competitor has allowed the growth of the production of domestic GPUs. Moreover, China has just demonstrated a supercomputer faster than any US supercomputer, which unlike the US supercomputers, which need GPUs, achieves its high computational throughput with custom CPUs designed in China (implemen…

[deleted]

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

#259

Post by dvngnt_ »

NemoNobody wrote: post #132
dvngnt_ wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can stop piracy or child predators. what makes you think they can prevent access to running models that require no internet access to run

Piracy is in a practical Golden Age rn and the Epstein Files exist - so the Government doesn't really do either of those things very well at all. Plus for a certain type of person "Piracy" is more of a philosophical belief or political position - there are fundamentalist equivalent, very proficient, "Pirates" who will under no circumstances stop and are not doing it for money. There are obviously an enormous amount w…

Typo my mistake

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

#260

Post by eru »

dvngnt_ wrote: post #84
echoangle wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believe me, if the government wants to stop you from having access to something like that, they could do it. Just give people some incentive to report you and make really harsh punishments and everyone will be thinking really hard about how bad they want have access.

They can stop piracy or child predators. what makes you think they can prevent access to running models that require no internet access to run

The capacity of government is positive but finite.

The government can't stop all murders, but committing murders ain't exactly without consequences either.

Post reply on HN