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

261–264 of 264 posts

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

#261

Post by eru »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #32
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…

> Nvda for one has every incentive to keep the nemotron line going They're releases so far have been kind of lackluster compared to Qwen and other Chinese models. My suspicion is that Nvidia won't be releasing models that appear to compete with frontier models because that would upset their big customers.

Also they don't need to, as long as someone else is releasing good open-weight models.

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

#262

Post by eru »

g023 wrote: post #93
fridder wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need a SETI@Home but for model training

Slap the gpus in a car and offset the cost of ownership by supplying the grid for GPU power on the go. Either get paid in rebates or tokens. Contribute to a distributed training/inferencing network.

Sorry, how does being in a car help here?

Electricity in cars is pretty expensive, at least while you are driving. (You either generate it from your internal combustion engine, or you get it from your battery which pays for extra conversion inefficiencies and lowers your range.)

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

#263

Post by chubaka »

danny_codes wrote: post #102
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.

Fortunately we have both a democracy and a constitution, making those sorts of things hard for the government to do.

Naive baby.

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

#264

Post by profsummergig »

krater23 wrote: post #191
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.

Have no fear,after the bubble bursted, there will be more than enough cheap hardware for espacially this.

Godspeed.
Post reply on HN