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

871–880 of 909 posts

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#871

Post by ArtTimeInvestor »

__alexs wrote: post #713
ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #76

Why do companies release open source LLMs? I would understand it, if there was some technology lock-in. But with LLMs, there is no such thing. One can switch out LLMs without any friction.

I believe it's to create barriers to entry and make the space harder to compete in. There's still a ton of value in the lower end of the market by capability, and it's easier for more companies to compete in. If you make the cost floor for that basically free you eliminate everyone else's ability to make any profit there and then leverage that into building a product that can also compete at the higher end. This make…

Oh, wow. Following this line of thinking, what seems like a noble gesture on the surface is a scorched earth approach in reality.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#872

Post by ArtTimeInvestor »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #234
ArtTimeInvestor wrote: post #76

Why do companies release open source LLMs? I would understand it, if there was some technology lock-in. But with LLMs, there is no such thing. One can switch out LLMs without any friction.

Zuckerberg explains a few of the reasons here: https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/mark-zuckerberg#:~:text=As%20long... The short version is that is you give a product to open source, they can and will donate time and money to improving your product, and the ecosystem around it, for free, and you get to reap those benefits. Llama has already basically won that space (the standard way of running open models is llama.cpp), so O…

I understand the rationale behind open sourcing llama.cpp. Because it has a lock-in effect.

But I don't see how open sourcing weights has a lock-in effect. In fact, it seems OpeanAI's open models can be run on llama.cpp. So by offereing them, they make llama.cpp even MORE useful. Instead of driving developers towards their own tech.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#873

Post by kybernetikos »

dcreater wrote: post #440
captainregex wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m still trying to understand what is the biggest group of people that uses local AI (or will)? Students who don’t want to pay but somehow have the hardware? Devs who are price conscious and want free agentic coding? Local, in my experience, can’t even pull data from an image without hallucinating (Qwen 2.5 VI in that example). Hopefully local/small models keep getting better and devices get better at running bigger…

Why do any compute locally? Everything can just be cloud based right? Won't that work much better and scale easily? We are not even at that extreme and you can already see the unequal reality that too much SaaS has engendered

> Won't that work much better and scale easily?

Doing computation that can happen at end points at the end points is massively more scaleable. Even better, its done by compute you usually aren't paying for if you're the company providing the service.

I saw an interview with the guy who made photopea where he talked about how tiny his costs were because all compute was done in the user's browser. Running a saas in a cloud is expensive.

It's an underrated aspect of what we used to call "software".

And that's leaving aside questions of latency and data privacy.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#874

Post by teitoklien »

xwolfi wrote: post #578
mplewis wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure sounds like they're not good at anything in particular, then.

welcome to 3DTV hype, LLM are useless...

not really, claude is amazing, which is why I pay for Claude Max, its insanely amazing and useful, its just OpenAI's one isnt

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#875

Post by FrustratedMonky »

9rx wrote: post #867
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? Not sure I understand the point you're making. Maybe we are using different age cutoffs. And Republicans are justifying Trumps actions by lowering the age before being considered children? Thus making it not pedophilia?

> Not sure I understand the point you're making. Where in my questions to try and understand what you are trying to say do you find a point? > Republicans are justifying Trumps actions by lowering the age before being considered children? What has you questioning that? I mean, research has shown a link between exposure to certain chemicals and early-onset puberty. It is technically possible to lower the average age w…

I never said anything about Republicans using chemicals to create younger adults. It was about changing the age of consent. I was saying they are arguing for a lower age to be ok.

It seemed as if the argument was just around moving the age where childhood ends. Just re-contextualizing the argument.

Like the argument "well she looked older" so it is ok.

Kind of like middle eastern countries marry off girls at 11 or 12. That would be disgusting to the west. But if Trump does it, it seems like Republicans are happy enough to slide the scale and say "well 14 isn't that bad".

Since so many Republicans and Church officials get charged with having sex with kids, and there are so many arguments trying to justify it, and they continue to vote for and support these people, that I can say Republicans support pedophiles.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#876

Post by zgk7iqea »

vonneumannstan wrote: post #838
int_19h wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried 20b locally and it couldn't reason a way out of a basic river crossing puzzle with labels changed. That is not anywhere near SOTA. In fact it's worse than many local models that can do it, including e.g. QwQ-32b.

This kind of stuff is so tired. Who cares if it can't solve your silly riddle? It can probably do competitive coding at a world class level and we're quibbling over child riddles? Yeah you know my backhoe is really bad at cutting my toe nails, what a PoS.

Feels like this is the wrong site for profanity

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#877

Post by FrustratedMonky »

9rx wrote: post #863
FrustratedMonky wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"explained his reasoning" Well, I guess, if you are taking some pretty wild speculation as a reasoned explanation. There isn't much hope for you. Maybe it was because the Democrats new the Earth was about the be invaded by an Alien race , and they also knew Trump was actually a lizard person (native to Earth and thus on their joint side). And Trump would be able to defeat them, so using the secret mind control powers…

> if you are taking some pretty wild speculation as a reasoned explanation. How the heck did you manage to conflate line of reasoning with claims being made? > There isn't much hope for you. And fall for the ad hominem fallacy. > crazy arguments that somehow everything Trump does is the fault of the Democrats While inventing some weird diatribe about crazy arguments claiming Democrats being at fault for what Trump do…

Ok. If you go back to original. I was bit sarcastic. So a sarcastic question, is probably not taken as a real question.

Like when hearing something out of left field, I think the reply can also be extreme, like saying 'Wuuut????, are you real?".

I do see claims that the Democrats are at fault for us having Trump. Thus anything that happens now is really a knock on effect of Democrats not beating him, so we blame Democrats instead of the people that actually voted for Trump or Trump himself.

So hearing yet another argument about how Democrats are so politically astute that they could swing the Republican primary yet completely fumble later, just seems like more conspiracy theories.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#878

Post by 9rx »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #875
9rx wrote: post #867

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not sure I understand the point you're making. Where in my questions to try and understand what you are trying to say do you find a point? > Republicans are justifying Trumps actions by lowering the age before being considered children? What has you questioning that? I mean, research has shown a link between exposure to certain chemicals and early-onset puberty. It is technically possible to lower the average age w…

I never said anything about Republicans using chemicals to create younger adults. It was about changing the age of consent. I was saying they are arguing for a lower age to be ok. It seemed as if the argument was just around moving the age where childhood ends. Just re-contextualizing the argument. Like the argument "well she looked older" so it is ok. Kind of like middle eastern countries marry off girls at 11 or 12…

> I never said anything about Republicans using chemicals to create younger adults.

You don't say? Try reading it again.

> I was saying they are arguing for a lower age to be ok.

We likely touched on that when we talked about people starting to reject what I called the "Teen Mom" movement. Yes, people are waking up to the fact that not having children until their geriatric years, if at all, is... not great. They are sick of being shamed for wanting to have children and are pushing back.

But my question was about your claims related to pedophilia. That's another subject entirely.

> I can say Republicans support pedophiles.

So you keep saying, but all you've come up with is some groups of people who have no doubt broken the law, but haven't exhibited any signs of pedophilia.

At this point the only logical expiation here is that you've made up a random definition for the word on the spot and are trying to use it as some kind of boogieman in hopes on preying on those who assume you are using the term in good faith. And if that is the case, I have to question why you find your bad faith participation acceptable?

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#879

Post by 9rx »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #877
9rx wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you are taking some pretty wild speculation as a reasoned explanation. How the heck did you manage to conflate line of reasoning with claims being made? > There isn't much hope for you. And fall for the ad hominem fallacy. > crazy arguments that somehow everything Trump does is the fault of the Democrats While inventing some weird diatribe about crazy arguments claiming Democrats being at fault for what Trump do…

Ok. If you go back to original. I was bit sarcastic. So a sarcastic question, is probably not taken as a real question. Like when hearing something out of left field, I think the reply can also be extreme, like saying 'Wuuut????, are you real?". I do see claims that the Democrats are at fault for us having Trump. Thus anything that happens now is really a knock on effect of Democrats not beating him, so we blame Demo…

> I do see claims that the Democrats are at fault for us having Trump.

If you mean your own comments, yes, I saw that too. Your invented blame made about as much sense as blaming a butterfly who flapped his wings in Africa, but I understand that you were ultimately joking around. Of course, the same holds true for all other comments you supposedly keep seeing. You are not the only one on this earth who dabbles in sarcasm or other forms of comedy, I can assure you.

> Like when hearing something out of left field

The Democrats preferring to race against Trump instead of whomever the alternative would have been may not be actually true, but out in left field? Is this sarcasm again? They beat Trump before. Them seeing him as the weakest opponent at the time wouldn't come as a shock to me. Why you?

> So hearing yet another argument about how Democrats are so politically astute that they could swing the Republican primary

There was nothing to suggest political astuteness. The claim was that they were worried about someone other than Trump winning the Republican ballot and, because of that, they took action to grease the wheels of his victory. Even the most inept group of people would still see the motive and would almost certainly still take action. That it ostensibly worked is just as easily explained by dumb luck.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#880

Post by 9rx »

jlaternman wrote: post #864
dragonwriter wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The knowledge cutoff is before the 2024 election (which was, after all, just 9 months ago), June 2024 (I believe this is consistent with the current versions of GPT-4o and -4.1), after Biden had secured the nomination. It is very clear in that chat logs (which include reasoning traces) that the model knew that, knew what the last election it knew about was, and answered correctly based on its cut off initially. Under…

I like that term much better, confabulation. I’ve come to think of it as it relies on an inherent trust in the fact that whatever process it uses to produce a coherent response (which I don’t think the LLM can really analyze after the fact) is inherently a truth-making process, since it trusts inherently its training data and considers that the basis of all its responses. Something along those lines. We might do some…

> since it trusts inherently its training data and considers that the basis of all its responses.

Doesn't that make "hallucination" the better term? The LLM is "seeing" something in the data that isn't actually reflected in reality. Whereas "confabulation" would imply that LLMs are creating data out of "thin air", which leaves the training data to be immaterial.

Both words, as they have been historically used, need to be stretched really far to fit an artificial creation that bears no resemblance to what those words were used to describe, so, I mean, any word is as good as any other at that point, but "hallucination" requires less stretching. So I am curious about why you like "confabulation" much better. Perhaps it simply has a better ring to your ear?

But, either way, these pained human analogies have grown tired. It is time to call it what it really is: Snorfleblat.

Post reply on HN