Top
Best
New

Posted by tknaup 8 hours ago

Open-weight AI is having its Kubernetes moment(tobi.knaup.me)
264 points | 198 commentspage 3
chrisjbg 5 hours ago|
Dario is a FUD-spreading douche
claw-el 3 hours ago|
Essentially doing this, https://health.clevelandclinic.org/catastrophizing while making other’s mental health worse..
pich 2 hours ago||
[flagged]
hsienchuc 4 hours ago||
[flagged]
nttylock 6 hours ago||
[flagged]
debarshri 5 hours ago||
Shameless plugin. Funny enough we just made agents kubernetes native at adaptive [1]

[1] https://adaptive.live

petilon 5 hours ago||
Enormous amounts of money is being invested in the development of AI models. Investors expect returns on their investment or they will not continue investing. Open weights make it harder for investors to get their money back, so it harms the industry.

Once the weights are out, it makes no sense to ban them in the US while the rest of the world takes advantage of it. But that doesn't mean developers of frontier models shouldn't take steps to prevent their weights from being stolen.

danny_codes 5 hours ago||
Ridiculous. If investors wish to set their money on fire investing in over-valued companies, they are welcome to do so. Protectionism to preserve ROI is a dumb policy. Just look at the US car industry. We're building dinosaurs. On this trajectory we'll have 0% market share abroad in 10 years. Chinese EVs will probably get market share at a 100% tariff because US automakers fell so far behind.

Same situation in protectionism in AI. The rest of the world will simply lap us.

Another shill account I gues

jumpkick 5 hours ago||
How are weights stolen from the frontier model developers? What is that actual mechanism?
eigenspace 5 hours ago||
The weights themselves aren't stolen. The claim is that Chinese companies are using VPNs and proxies to buy massive amounts of Claude Pro and Codex subscription accounts, and then selling usage on those subscriptions as cheap white-label LLM API usage.

While selling that LLM API usage, they then capture all the prompts, outputs, and intermediate thinking the LLM does, and then sell those logs to the companies making open-weight models. The open-weight model developers then train on those logs to 'distill' a model.

jumpkick 4 hours ago|||
The parent I replied to said frontier weights were “being stolen” which is not the literal case. I think precision is important here.
eigenspace 4 hours ago||
I agree. That's why I said that the weights were not being stolen, and then explained what is actually being done.
singingtoday 5 hours ago||||
Fantastic, thank you for the explanation!
ForHackernews 5 hours ago|||
...good for them?

We used to call that competition.

Imagine making this argument with a straight face in any other industry:

"The claim is that Japanese car companies are buying Ford vehicles, and then leasing them to American consumers at cut-rate prices. In return for the cheap cars, the customers are letting the Japanese observe their driving behavior, studying how they use their F-150 and then the Japanese car companies are applying that data to design new vehicles that will directly replace Ford!"

eigenspace 5 hours ago|||
I wasn't arguing against the practice, I was clarifying that the weights of these models are not being stolen, and explaining what these companies do to create their models.
petilon 5 hours ago|||
> observe their driving behavior

That's not what they are observing, it is the behavior of the engines.

ForHackernews 1 hour ago||
:sigh:

fine, s/observing the way the Ford cars work

kalu 5 hours ago|
The sentiment in this article is nice. But open source software is a weak analogy for frontier models. Principally because software requires zero capital investment (actually zero) while frontier models demand billions. Open models can only survive in the long run if they can (eventually) generate significant cash flows or if they are paid for by governments. Now China essentially has a monopoly on open weight models. And so supporting open source models means either supporting long term economic capture by China or supporting Chinese government control of your intelligence. Both of these outcomes are unequivocally bad from an American perspective. If you live in the valley and benefit from the US venture ecosystem you should be highly skeptical of open weight models. Banning them may very well be the best course of action.
Danox 1 hour ago||
They don’t have a monopoly and if they do, it would only be because the EU and the United States let them or I should say they let all their decisions be made by private companies who scraped the public Internet and now want to fence it in for their up-and-coming IPO.
danny_codes 5 hours ago|||
Hilariously bad take. Open weight models can be retrained of fine-tuned, that's the entire point. The idea that the "Chinese government controls your intelligence" is laughable in the case of open weight models. Once the weights are released you can do whatever you want with them. The idea that there's economic capture by the Chinese for products they're literally giving away is stupid to the point of inanity.

I can only assume this account is pure shilling for the closed-source AI labs.

noncoml 5 hours ago|||
Open Source is free as in speech

Open Weights is free as in beer

singingtoday 5 hours ago||
Ah, a true scholar!
pianopatrick 5 hours ago||
"Open source" open models can also survive if they are seen as a necessary cost of doing business. Same logic as tech companies working together on Linux. "We need an operating system. But an operating system is expensive to make on our own and does not really provide an edge. So let's just work on and use the open source one."