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

Open models by OpenAI

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 909 posts

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#301

Post by irthomasthomas »

I was hoping these were the stealth Horizon models on OpenRouter, impressive but not quite GPT-5 level.

My bet: GPT-5 leans into parallel reasoning via a model consortium, maybe mixing in OSS variants. Spin up multiple reasoning paths in parallel, then have an arbiter synthesize or adjudicate. The new Harmony prompt format feels like infrastructural prep: distinct channels for roles, diversity, and controlled aggregation.

I’ve been experimenting with this in llm-consortium: assign roles to each member (planner, critic, verifier, toolsmith, etc.) and run them in parallel. The hard part is eval cost :(

Combining models smooths out the jagged frontier. Different architectures and prompts fail in different ways; you get less correlated error than a single model can give you. It also makes structured iteration natural: respond → arbitrate → refine. A lot of problems are “NP-ish”: verification is cheaper than generation, so parallel sampling plus a strong judge is a good trade.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#302

Post by xpe »

ClassAndBurn wrote: post #158

Open models are going to win long-term. Anthropics' own research has to use OSS models [0]. China is demonstrating how quickly companies can iterate on open models, allowing smaller teams access and augmentation to the abilities of a model without paying the training cost. My personal prediction is that the US foundational model makers will OSS something close to N-1 for the next 1-3 iterations. The CAPEX for the fou…

> Open models are going to win long-term.

[2 of 3] Assuming we pin down what win means... (which is definitely not easy)... What would it take for this to not be true? There are many ways, including but not limited to:

- publishing open weights helps your competitors catch up

- publishing open weights doesn't improve your own research agenda

- publishing open weights leads to a race dynamic where only the latest and greatest matters; leading to a situation where the resources sunk exceed the gains

- publishing open weights distracts your organization from attaining a sustainable business model / funding stream

- publishing open weights leads to significant negative downstream impacts (there are a variety of uncertain outcomes, such as: deepfakes, security breaches, bioweapon development, unaligned general intelligence, humans losing control [1] [2], and so on)

[1]: "What failure looks like" by Paul Christiano : https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/HBxe6wdjxK239zajf/what-...

[2]: "An AGI race is a suicide race." - quote from Max Tegmark; article at https://futureoflife.org/statement/agi-manhattan-project-max...

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#303

Post by christianqchung »

fnands wrote: post #223

Mhh, I wonder if these are distilled from GPT4-Turbo. I asked it some questions and it seems to think it is based on GPT4-Turbo: > Thus we need to answer "I (ChatGPT) am based on GPT-4 Turbo; number of parameters not disclosed; GPT-4's number of parameters is also not publicly disclosed, but speculation suggests maybe around 1 trillion? Actually GPT-4 is likely larger than 175B; maybe 500B. In any case, we can note i…

A little bit of training data certainly has gotten in there, but I don't see any reasons for them to deliberately distill from such an old model. Models have always been really bad at telling you what model they are.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#305

Post by shpongled »

spott wrote: post #222
shpongled wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know when this was introduced (or which paper)? AFAIK it's not that way in the original transformer paper, or BERT/GPT-2

All the Llamas have done it (well, 2 and 3, and I believe 1, I don't know about 4). I think they have a citation for it, though it might just be the RoPE paper ( https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.09864 ). I'm not actually aware of any model that doesn't do positional embeddings on a per-layer basis (excepting BERT and the original transformer paper, and I haven't read the GPT2 paper in a while, so I'm not sure about that on…

Thanks! I'm not super up to date on all the ML stuff :)

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#306

Post by recursive »

Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #156
moralestapia wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can always get your $0 back.

I have never agreed with a comment so much but we are all addicted to open source models now.

Not all of us. I've yet to get much use out of any of the models. This may be a personal failing. But still.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#307

Post by recursive »

BizarroLand wrote: post #286
hedora wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slavery is still legal and widespread in most of the US, including California. There was a ballot measure to actually abolish slavery a year or so back. It failed miserably.

The slavery of free humans is illegal in America, so now the big issue is figuring out how to convince voters that imprisoned criminals deserve rights. Even in liberal states, the dehumanization of criminals is an endemic behavior, and we are reaching the point in our society where ironically having the leeway to discuss the humane treatment of even our worst criminals is becoming an issue that affects how we see our…

> slavery of free humans is illegal

That's kind of vacuously true though, isn't it?

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#308

Post by UrineSqueegee »

modeless wrote: post #289
bigyabai wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect, you need to actually test out Qwen3 2507 or GLM 4.5 before making these sorts of claims. Both of them are comparable to OpenAI's largest models and even bench favorably to Deepseek and Opus: https://cdn-uploads.huggingface.co/production/uploads/62430a... It's cool to see OpenAI throw their hat in the ring, but you're smoking straight hopium if you think there's "no reason to run other open sourc…

> Both of them are comparable to OpenAI's largest models and even bench favorably to Deepseek and Opus So are/do the new OpenAI models, except they're much smaller.

I'd really wait for additional neutral benchmarks, I asked the 20b model on low reasoning effort which number is larger 9.9 or 9.11 and it got it wrong.

Qwen-0.6b gets it right.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#309

Post by _ache_ »

timmg wrote: post #112

Orthogonal, but I just wanted to say how awesome Ollama is. It took 2 seconds to find the model and a minute to download and now I'm using it. Kudos to that team.

To be fair, it's with the help of OpenAI. They did it together, before the official release.

https://ollama.com/blog/gpt-oss

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#310

Post by thegeomaster »

modeless wrote: post #128
Rhubarrbb wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, these models seem relatively mediocre to Qwen3 / GLM 4.5

Nah, these are much smaller models than Qwen3 and GLM 4.5 with similar performance. Fewer parameters and fewer bits per parameter. They are much more impressive and will run on garden variety gaming PCs at more than usable speed. I can't wait to try on my 4090 at home. There's basically no reason to run other open source models now that these are available, at least for non-multimodal tasks.

They have worse scores than recent open source releases on a number of agentic and coding benchmarks, so if absolute quality is what you're after and not just cost/efficiency, you'd probably still be running those models.

Let's not forget, this is a thinking model that has a significantly worse scores on Aider-Polyglot than the non-thinking Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507, a worse TAUBench score than the smaller GLM-4.5 Air, and a worse SWE-Bench verified score than the (3x the size) GLM-4.5. So the results, at least in terms of benchmarks, are not really clear-cut.

From a vibes perspective, the non-reasoners Kimi-K2-Instruct and the aforementioned non-thinking Qwen3 235B are much better at frontend design. (Tested privately, but fully expecting DesignArena to back me up in the following weeks.)

OpenAI has delivered something astonishing for the size, for sure. But your claim is just an exaggeration. And OpenAI have, unsurprisingly, highlighted only the benchmarks where they do _really_ well.

Post reply on HN