Live data from Hacker News

There is minimal downside to switching to open models

marble.onl

321–330 of 351 posts

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#321
post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Russia blocks Security Council action on Ukraine" ... "A ‘no’ vote from any one of the five permanent members of the Council stops action on any measure put before it. The body’s permanent members are: China, France, Russian Federation , the United Kingdom, and the United States." https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/02/1112802 (emphasis mine) This is 101-level UN stuff. If Ukrainian diplomats were unaware that Russia…

> This is 101-level UN stuff. If Ukrainian diplomats were unaware that Russia can veto Security Council resolutions, that means they were totally incompetent. There are ways around it, if there's a will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl... It is safe to say that the present lack of leadership from the US was not foreseen at the time. It was unimaginable that Russia would launch a major gro…

>There are ways around it, if there's a will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...

The reason you do things via the Security Council is so you don't go to war with a nation that has nukes. The General Assembly is besides the point really.

>It is safe to say that the present lack of leadership from the US was not foreseen at the time. It was unimaginable that Russia would launch a major ground war in Europe and that the American president would blame the victim of the aggression and try to coerce them into surrender while sucking up to the aggressor. This is not how things were conducted back then. It was the era of Schwarzkopfs showing strength and resolve by giving presentations on how coalition tanks had pummeled the enemy in the past few weeks, not of Sullivans showing weakness and indecisiveness by endlessly yapping about "escalation".

You Europeans spent decades denouncing the US as a supposed warmonger, and then wonder to yourselves why the US no longer wants to make war on your behalf.

>Biden did not save Ukraine.

I think he actually might've. In any case, I don't think Europe ever apologized for dismissing Biden's warning about the invasion.

>...the Ukrainian government was thoroughly unprepared for the oncoming assault, with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spending months dismissing increasingly urgent American warnings as scaremongering, and quashing last-minute concerns among his own military and intelligence elite, who eventually made limited attempts to prepare behind his back.

>“In the final weeks, the intelligence leaders were starting to get it, the mood was different. But the political leadership just refused to accept it until right at the end,” said one US intelligence official.

>...

>On 18 February, [the head of Ukraine’s military intelligence agency], Kyrylo Budanov, had received a three-hour briefing from a western official who laid out in detail the Russian plans for seizing Hostomel airfield. The information helped with setting up some last-minute defensive plans, although the Ukrainian victory at Hostomel in the first days of the war would be a chaotic and close-run thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2026/feb/20...

Note that the US/British intelligence assessment was initially that Kyiv would be rapidly captured.

>The core problem is that the US has spent almost a century embedding itself in all kinds of relationships (cultural, political, economic, military), but has lost the ability to carry out that central role.

Precisely. The globe has developed now. Non-US economies have grown, reducing relative US power. In my view, global development is a good thing which is, if anything, a credit to US leadership. Observe how things have trended since the US became hegemon in 1945: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HKoiloOaUAEArXl?format=jpg&name=...

The US only has 4% of the world population. We did the world police thing for a while, but it's not realistic to expect us to be world police indefinitely.

This isn't just a Trump thing. Obama wanted the US to step back as well: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/obama-unhap...

Obama and Bush told Europe they needed to take more responsibility for their own defense. Europe didn't listen. I'm glad Trump finally got the message through.

>The limited but valuable military support fostered an unhealthy relationship that gave the US a veto over Ukraine's (and other allies') actions, but the US leaders do not have the statemanship to use that power responsibly. Biden's legacy is the shortsighted micromanagement that turned the fast and effective Ukrainian counteroffensives of 2022 into slow and costly trench warfare of 2026, all while emboldening enemies like Iran to launch assaults like October 7th.

Biden knew that Putin is crazy, and if Ukraine advances too fast and Russia launches a nuke, the US will be blamed for "warmongering" once again. Everything is always our fault.

In any case, given your complaints, I'm glad that Trump has relieved Ukraine of the burden of US support.

Everyone loves to critique the US. Half of our critics will say we went too far. The other half will say we didn't go far enough. Everyone outside the US is eating popcorn from the stands, taking zero responsibility for the outcome, feeling morally superior to the United States while they benefit from Pax Americana. And then they'll start critiquing our domestic policies, as though our internal affairs are their business. I've had enough. Time for a Swiss foreign policy. George Washington was right: No foreign entanglements or peacetime alliances. We'll handle our continent, and you handle yours.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#322
i'm tired of this narrative about switching to open source models. If people wanted to switch... well they would have switched! The amount of effort Anthropic and OpenAI are putting behind inference, harness, building great agentic applications on top of the frontier model... IS NOT A SMALL THING.

Think about it, if you want to use an open source model to run an agent over long horizons, you need someone to offer it reliably. And if all compute goes to frontier models there is very little left for even startups to build agentic companies on top of these open source models.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#323
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK can arrest you for hate speech. You can disagree with that policy on free speech terms if you want, and that’s really a maximal free speech position. It’s a very strange position to hold if you’re claiming that the U.S. is better when it comes to free speech. The U.S. administration is engaged in active smear campaigns against anyone who speaks loudly against them, threatened to revoke licenses of media compan…

The UK is not the EU, the UK is US "lite", they have always been that way, thats not something new.

Not getting the relevance of this comment.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#324
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m an LLM fan, but from an engineering perspective the idea of building atop services that palpably fluctuate in capacity, performance, and capability is nutty . Even with minor automation I feel like I can watch OpenAI and Anthropic engineers fiddling in real-time. Tuesdays behaviour changes by Thursday, 10AMs production isn’t possible at 11:30AM. Nutty.

Imagine having a business where you're at the mercy of the fluctuations in capacity, performance, and capability that your human employees display!

… all of which can be controlled through scheduling, and has been baked into all business operations since before money was invented.

Meatspace fluctuations are predictable, quantifiable, and manageable through planning. The changes to hosted model behaviour are not.

Literally, the prompt terms used to manage document reading can change multiple times within a day. MS and Oracle provide decades-long consistent interfaces in their data products.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being entirely unreasonable. 640 kilobytes of memory was enough for Bill Gates, and yet somehow your special project needs more?

it's 2026. my work machine is a macbook pro with 64gb ram. i would rather spend a few hundred or thousands of dollars a month to make way more, than waste time and still lose to people who are using the latest commercial models which are 3 months ahead of the open source. what are you even talking about?

I am jokingly agreeing with you: Bill Gates famously claimed 640 kilobytes of RAM was sufficient for everyone, which felt like a funny parallel to people telling you "open source models are sufficient for everyone"

There's obviously a competitive advantage to having better tools, and I find it amusing/absurd that some people don't get that.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly not really sure what "traditional western values" have to do with where to store data. What does that even refer to—individualism? Christianity? Representation in court by lawyers? How does this intersect with the topic at hand? Edit: c'mon people, if you're going to use such ambiguous phrases at least have the spine to clue the reader in to what you want them to refer to in this context.

Well there have been a lot.. philosopy, polis, democracy, hemlock cup, enlightenment (note the perversion of "the dark enlightenment"), modernity, the resistance (against Nazism), psychoanalysis, postmodernism and critical studies (postmodernism in the genuine sense of the philosophies/theories that you would assign that label to and not in the misguided sense of relativism as arbitrarity; basically continental philo…

Philosophy and democracy are hardly unique to western culture. But I see how one would be proud of and want to preserve most of these things.

But putting that aside, most of this is modern, i.e. formed after the 17th century. I hardly see how any of this is traditional. Most of the good stuff here was formed in the 20th century—emphatically modern, borderline postmodern.

Yes, I'm being facetious. But I really fucking hate conservatives that don't understand what the words they're saying mean.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same old tired arguments from Americans about how if you don't let fascists have free speech, it's not really free speech.

Who controls the definition of "fascist"? In any case, practically speaking, censorship helped the rise of the Nazis: https://www.fire.org/news/blogs/eternally-radical-idea/would... You can see far-right parties surging across Europe. Speech restriction isn't just authoritarian, it's also counterproductive. As an American I am actually quite worried about Europe's far right. Those guys are very scary, and it's creepy…

In spaces and interactions I control, the definition is up to me.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure the big quant shops heavily use LLM; maybe it’s trivial stuff and they just work 100 hrs/week?

Anyone who heavily uses LLMs for their work is pretty obviously ill-equipped for their work, and likely getting even worse at it with time, yes. You can throw around as many "things people from the US worship because they make money" positions/industries as you want. Nevermind that you're "pretty sure". People who both know what LLMs are actually capable of without major issues, plus are already capable enough to do…

Is the majority of work not BS gruntwork?

My job has lots of low value stuff that must be done before I get high value tasks, so LLMs let me speed through to that point.

(I use LLMs to spam disposable scripts in a construction environment)

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many Europeans believe ... > ... misinformation (likely Ukrainian-origin) ... Your post is also "a half-baked, un-falsifiable conspiracy theory with little supporting evidence" ;)

Can you point me to any sort of Ukrainian law which would prohibit this type of info op? See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_of_Kyiv If the US was attacked the way Ukraine was attacked, and foreign intervention was key to our survival as a nation, I expect the Pentagon would deploy foreign info ops in that situation. That doesn't seem like a heavy lift to me. Occam's Razor: If something is a core/essential n…

> If the US was attacked the way Ukraine was attacked, and foreign intervention was key to our survival as a nation, I expect the Pentagon would deploy foreign info ops in that situation. That doesn't seem like a heavy lift to me.

Yea, but Ukraine doesn't have any hope, so this is just an excuse to abuse people with zero upside. A recipe for corruption, looting, trafficking, weapons-dealing, and every other evil you can imagine.

The constitutional clause of refusing to cede territory seems to have damned Ukraine to death. Even if the state of ukraine gets the territory back (which seems extremely unlikely), the state is doomed and the people are fucked. The only route to saving the nation was to cede territory. It sucks! It's wrong! I know; but what other path was there?

regardless, I grieve for ukrainians and the people who live there.

Re: There is minimal downside to switching to open models

#330
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US federal government forced Paramount to take Colbert off the air. Not really; the Ellisons are quite close to Trump. Nobody was forced to do anything. Had the FCC actually revoked their license, and had Paramount actually been willing to fight, they could have sued. It's not easy to force anyone that rich to do anything; the state works on behalf of capital. It seems like europe is more aware of the meaningle…

You might want to read the 3rd paragraph of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merger_of_Skydance_Media_and_P... Read that timeline and then see if you're still convinced that they didn't at least seem to have done a thing or 2 to appease the federal government

Of course, but that's business. Authoritarianism would imply a conflict unresolvable outside of state violence.
Post reply on HN