2 ms·

Sure. But if you don't own the tool and it is held by a cabal of centralist (even political state-adjacent) parties, you're having a bad day when computer says

Sure. But if you don't own the tool and it is held by a cabal of centralist (even political state-adjacent) parties, you're having a bad day when computer says no.

ianbutler 4mo ago
We love our open source models. GLM 5.2 came out recently and the timeline for closing the gap to closed source shrank to something like 2 weeks by popular measurements. Edit: Mis remembered the timeline I saw not 2 weeks, 3 months, but still I think my point stands.
- aix1 4mo ago
  Just to make sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that today's open source models are on par with frontier closed models of two weeks ago? By what criteria?
  - nostrademons 4mo ago
    HN thread from 2 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48567759 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48567759 Commenters there were saying GLM 5.2 was roughly equivalent to Opus 4.8 in coding prowess, based on personal experience of the people commenting. Opus 4.8 came out on May 28 this year (so more like 3 weeks ago), GLM 5.2 came out 2 days ago.
    - Capricorn2481 4mo ago
      I haven't tried this specific model, but you can understand that a lot of HN testimonials are bound to swing extremely pro open source. I certainly hope they are as good. But I have personally tried a lot of models that are supposedly as good as the frontier ones and have found them lacking. After a while, you do start to start to skip a couple rounds of open source models until there's a notable release. That, and the resources needed to run them are increasingly bought up by the owners of frontier models
  - ianbutler 4mo ago
    Sorry definitely mis-remembered on my part, its about 3 months https://x.com/yaroslavvb/status/2067367657272422584 https://x.com/yaroslavvb/status/2067367657272422584 https://x.com/voratiq/status/2067667800643268928 https://x.com/voratiq/status/2067667800643268928 https://arena.ai/leaderboard/agent https://arena.ai/leaderboard/agent
mediaman 4mo ago
The tools aren't owned by a cabal of state-adjacent parties. Specific implementations are. But open-source models have saved the day here.
- contingencies 4mo ago
  If they can keep up. Unfortunately, we learn from previous technology shifts that the masses will always favor ease of use (to the point of infinite scroll 5 second videos dopamine puddle, or echo chamber social networking in lieu of critical media consumption), which does not bode well for the market for alternative hardware: one which is already expensive. I fear on-prem AI is likely to become as popular as on-prem servers without Cloudflare using self-hosted email are today: that is to say, people have heard of it but the skillset is almost popularly eviscerated, external policies make it progressively impractical, and anyone who does it is 'niche'. While basic guides will exist, obtaining top-level output will probably require many moons of concerted effort. Basically: AI is SaaS for thinking.
  - analognoise 4mo ago
    Eh, this is our species first contact with that type of technology. A good number of voices see how deleterious these things are, and it’s all still very new. Future humans will tell parables about the evil tech bros and their silly obsessions, and the unequal accumulation of capital. This will be seen as a dark and stupid time, but I think we’ll persevere - the tech bro set is much weaker than they imagine, and certainly than they project.
    - crabsand 4mo ago
      Agreed. History shows concentration in the hands of a few usually doesn't go well, not because the masses are powerful or smarter than the few but there is a limit you can manage power from the top. AI will be another step in the popularization of information and we'll get both Wikipedia and TikTok of AI in coming years.
  - jstummbillig 4mo ago
moffkalast 4mo ago
That's when you load up qwen3.7_67b_21a_heretic_ablated_ablitereted_uncensored_agi_sparse_attention_MTP_SuperHOT_q6_AGI_FINAL.gguf

Sure. But if you don't own the tool and it is held by a cabal of centralist (even political state-adjacent) parties, you're having a bad day when computer says no.

ianbutler 4mo ago

We love our open source models. GLM 5.2 came out recently and the timeline for closing the gap to closed source shrank to something like 2 weeks by popular measurements. Edit: Mis remembered the timeline I saw not 2 weeks, 3 months, but still I think my point stands.

aix1 4mo ago
Just to make sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that today's open source models are on par with frontier closed models of two weeks ago? By what criteria?
- nostrademons 4mo ago
  HN thread from 2 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48567759 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48567759 Commenters there were saying GLM 5.2 was roughly equivalent to Opus 4.8 in coding prowess, based on personal experience of the people commenting. Opus 4.8 came out on May 28 this year (so more like 3 weeks ago), GLM 5.2 came out 2 days ago.
  - Capricorn2481 4mo ago
    I haven't tried this specific model, but you can understand that a lot of HN testimonials are bound to swing extremely pro open source. I certainly hope they are as good. But I have personally tried a lot of models that are supposedly as good as the frontier ones and have found them lacking. After a while, you do start to start to skip a couple rounds of open source models until there's a notable release. That, and the resources needed to run them are increasingly bought up by the owners of frontier models
- ianbutler 4mo ago
  Sorry definitely mis-remembered on my part, its about 3 months https://x.com/yaroslavvb/status/2067367657272422584 https://x.com/yaroslavvb/status/2067367657272422584 https://x.com/voratiq/status/2067667800643268928 https://x.com/voratiq/status/2067667800643268928 https://arena.ai/leaderboard/agent https://arena.ai/leaderboard/agent

mediaman 4mo ago

The tools aren't owned by a cabal of state-adjacent parties. Specific implementations are. But open-source models have saved the day here.

contingencies 4mo ago
If they can keep up. Unfortunately, we learn from previous technology shifts that the masses will always favor ease of use (to the point of infinite scroll 5 second videos dopamine puddle, or echo chamber social networking in lieu of critical media consumption), which does not bode well for the market for alternative hardware: one which is already expensive. I fear on-prem AI is likely to become as popular as on-prem servers without Cloudflare using self-hosted email are today: that is to say, people have heard of it but the skillset is almost popularly eviscerated, external policies make it progressively impractical, and anyone who does it is 'niche'. While basic guides will exist, obtaining top-level output will probably require many moons of concerted effort. Basically: AI is SaaS for thinking.
- analognoise 4mo ago
  Eh, this is our species first contact with that type of technology. A good number of voices see how deleterious these things are, and it’s all still very new. Future humans will tell parables about the evil tech bros and their silly obsessions, and the unequal accumulation of capital. This will be seen as a dark and stupid time, but I think we’ll persevere - the tech bro set is much weaker than they imagine, and certainly than they project.
  - crabsand 4mo ago
    Agreed. History shows concentration in the hands of a few usually doesn't go well, not because the masses are powerful or smarter than the few but there is a limit you can manage power from the top. AI will be another step in the popularization of information and we'll get both Wikipedia and TikTok of AI in coming years.
- jstummbillig 4mo ago

moffkalast 4mo ago

That's when you load up qwen3.7_67b_21a_heretic_ablated_ablitereted_uncensored_agi_sparse_attention_MTP_SuperHOT_q6_AGI_FINAL.gguf