4 ms·

Humans aren't benefiting from LLMs, only a few individuals are. Let's stop with the fake platitudes and realize that unless this technology isn't completely ope

by shimman 7mo ago

Humans aren't benefiting from LLMs, only a few individuals are. Let's stop with the fake platitudes and realize that unless this technology isn't completely open sourced from top to bottom, it's a complete farce to think humans are going to benefit and not just the rich getting richer.

altruios 7mo ago
Gemma4 is apache2 licensed. I am unsure about the openness of the training data itself. That too should be required for a LLM to be considered 'open'. Open source is the only way forward, I agree.
rubslopes 7mo ago
> Humans aren't benefiting from LLMs, only a few individuals are. Honest question: how is this different from traditional Open Source? Linux powers most of the internet, yet the biggest beneficiaries are cloud providers, not individual users. Good open weights models already exist and people can run them locally. The gap between "open" and "everyone benefits equally" has always been there...
- TeMPOraL 7mo ago
  Same is true about science as well. Taxpayer money is spent on research, but the outcomes of that research primarily benefits the corporate interests. I'm the last person to cheer for unrestrained capitalism, but this anti-billionaire / anti-AI narrative is getting ridiculous even for general population standards, much less for HN. It's like people think their food or medicine or LLMs grow on fucking trees. No. Companies and corporations is how adults do stuff for other adults, at scale. Everyone understands that, except of a part of software industry, that by accidental confluence of factors, works by different rules than literally the rest of the world.
- watwut 7mo ago
  Because opposite is true for open source? It is actually for free, whether you contribute to it or not. Anyone can legally use it for free. Torwalds can not just wake up one day and decide to charge more. If you feel like linux is a too much of a monopoly, you can actually fork it and compete.
  - rubslopes 7mo ago
    But I considered that when I said "Good open weights models already exist and people can run them locally." You can have a great LLM model with vast coding knowledge running on your computer right now, for free. It won't be the best one nor the fastest one, but still a very good one.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
TeMPOraL 7mo ago
You must not be serious. Every single person using LLMs, whether paid or free tiers or open models, whether using them for chat or as part of some kind of data pipeline - so possibly without even knowing they're using them - benefits. "Few individuals" get money mostly for providing LLMs as a service. As far as tech businesses go, this is refreshingly straightforward, literally just charging money for providing some useful service to people. Few tech companies have anything close to a honest business model like this.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

by shimman 7mo ago

altruios 7mo ago

Gemma4 is apache2 licensed. I am unsure about the openness of the training data itself. That too should be required for a LLM to be considered 'open'. Open source is the only way forward, I agree.

rubslopes 7mo ago

> Humans aren't benefiting from LLMs, only a few individuals are. Honest question: how is this different from traditional Open Source? Linux powers most of the internet, yet the biggest beneficiaries are cloud providers, not individual users. Good open weights models already exist and people can run them locally. The gap between "open" and "everyone benefits equally" has always been there...

TeMPOraL 7mo ago
Same is true about science as well. Taxpayer money is spent on research, but the outcomes of that research primarily benefits the corporate interests. I'm the last person to cheer for unrestrained capitalism, but this anti-billionaire / anti-AI narrative is getting ridiculous even for general population standards, much less for HN. It's like people think their food or medicine or LLMs grow on fucking trees. No. Companies and corporations is how adults do stuff for other adults, at scale. Everyone understands that, except of a part of software industry, that by accidental confluence of factors, works by different rules than literally the rest of the world.
watwut 7mo ago
Because opposite is true for open source? It is actually for free, whether you contribute to it or not. Anyone can legally use it for free. Torwalds can not just wake up one day and decide to charge more. If you feel like linux is a too much of a monopoly, you can actually fork it and compete.
- rubslopes 7mo ago
  But I considered that when I said "Good open weights models already exist and people can run them locally." You can have a great LLM model with vast coding knowledge running on your computer right now, for free. It won't be the best one nor the fastest one, but still a very good one.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]

TeMPOraL 7mo ago

You must not be serious. Every single person using LLMs, whether paid or free tiers or open models, whether using them for chat or as part of some kind of data pipeline - so possibly without even knowing they're using them - benefits. "Few individuals" get money mostly for providing LLMs as a service. As far as tech businesses go, this is refreshingly straightforward, literally just charging money for providing some useful service to people. Few tech companies have anything close to a honest business model like this.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]