261–270 of 303 posts
Open source does not apply to AI and we should discourage anyone from using that term. All the models are opaque and proprietary. You cannot go into any source code and fix bugs, or add features, or study it to learn more. It's not the same thing at all as open source software.
Open source does not apply to AI and we should discourage anyone from using that term. All the models are opaque and proprietary. You cannot go into any source code and fix bugs, or add features, or study it to learn more. It's not the same thing at all as open source software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. See TikTok trouble as example and quite honestly, try a local open source LLM and ask it to use profanity, paint nudes - the LLM doesn’t answer the question of it is from OpenAI or Google. The thing is that needs more attention is reverse engineered a LLM which is highly fascinating. I tried it, but it seems I am not there yet to put it mildly. It requires serious effort. I am just speculating but can LLMs b…
Since most folks still somehow review the code, I find it highly improbable, it would become visible quickly. Unless say compiling Unix parts for example. But thats compiler work and not llm.
this isn't if-else statements, its a jumble of linear algebra and matrices.
I watched a demonstration where one AI was trained to be obsessed with penguins. they asked for a random set of numbers from it. They fed that set into another AI model to analyze and the new model started to become obsessed with penguins.
I dont think open source is the only one to worry about though. I don't know if we even have a way to guarantee any model is secure, open or closed.
Open source does not apply to AI and we should discourage anyone from using that term. All the models are opaque and proprietary. You cannot go into any source code and fix bugs, or add features, or study it to learn more. It's not the same thing at all as open source software.
however, you can test the model, by asking it things. What are you concerned is hiding inside of that big block of numbers? Order 66?
I swear, Qwen 3.8 27B @ Q8 is smarter than Sonnet 5 most of the time. Why wouldn’t corporate America self host at this point, especially with better options like Deepseek Flash and GLM 5.3 flash that’s a middle ground between Sonnet and Opus
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Privacy is non-negotiable for corporate. Even without considering costs or country of origin, we've seen from OpenAI that claims of AI safety are worth less than the (virtual) paper they're printed on. All it takes is one incident, and all your company's internal data will start showing up in public users' chats. You can rely on a contract to prevent this, or you can guarantee it by using a locally hosted model you f…
> Privacy is non-negotiable for corporate. Corporate doesn't care at all about privacy. It's why the run outlook and windows and let Microsoft scoop up all of their company secrets. It's why they hand every scrap of data they have on their customers to salesforce and surrender their data to Atlassian and use Confluence and JIRA over countless alternatives. All companies care about is that when data breaches happen pu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why this style of cocksure Zitronesque comment is so trendy. It seems strange to make this statement, as if one has teleported to September 2026 from the end of the universe. Commenters in this vein aren't looking back to see that Anthropic and OpenAI models were the only truly usable ones for software development at the beginning of the year. Even Deepseek, which was and is revolutionary, was not useful…
Did you read the article? It’s not some future predicting theory. Open AI and Anthropic losing these workloads is what’s happening today.
Every larger company I talk to these days has an active project on moving away from OpenAI and Anthropic to open models. And they’re actively shifting, as the article says, so the threat is far from theoretical. Unless they both dramatically slash prices then they’re in big trouble. Neither of them can afford to do that and both desperately need to convince the street that the opposite will happen if they want any ho…
> However the cold reality for both is that there is zero moat to a model anymore. The moat right now is a) the hardware, b) the electricity, c) the intelligence, and d) scalability. On hardware, it's very expensive to purchase anything which can provide a fraction of the performance of a subscription. Traditional accounting depreciation would imply that purchasing local hardware is a terrible financial decision. On…
I'll grant they are superior at least right now. But also, they are too expensive.
We ($work) are finding that it is best to build engineering discipline around AI usage (who would've thought!) and use the cheaper models like Cursor Composer.
Using Opus we can blow through an entire month budget in an afternoon, so while more powerful, it is no longer practical except for rare very complex tasks.
The thing is, for big companies (or even small ones owned by PE, which is MOST of them), it's not just about cost. The big thing is risk . In my experience as a tech diligence assessor for PE firms for the last 7 years, investors really, really don't like companies being beholded to single entities that they don't control. Anthropic and OpenAI have demonstrated that they are not trustworthy, or predicatable, or finan…
How does this compare to being beholden to a single cloud providers like AWS or Google Cloud? Has there been a sea change in how investors view these things in general, or is it only AI?
But in terms of reliability - uptime, product, legal - they are in a different league.
There were exactly 0 instances waking up to a product decision at AWS completely breaking your product or workflows.