3 ms·
The minute an open model breaks through and beats Claude Opus/Fable, it's over. There are far more opportunities that can be served when the world's intellectu
by echelon 4mo ago
The minute an open model breaks through and beats Claude Opus/Fable, it's over.
There are far more opportunities that can be served when the world's intellectuals have the raw weights and can fine tune, splice, distill, and reapply.
Imagine having raw unfettered access to Fable. It can be refit to structural biology. It can be fine tuned on the repo for smaller context requirements. It can be run cheaper and air gapped.
The world wants this.
- barrenko 4mo agoAs crazy as this sounds, and as much I don't want to believe it myself, I think we're still underestimating LLMs, and we're gonna get to that point pretty soon.
- jupr 4mo agoThe world does want this. Opus capabilities, in a box, securely tunneled to my family and I utilizing the resources I already have available to me which is, energy + network.
- digitaltrees 4mo agoI don’t think we need them. I think the models we have are good enough. It’s the orchestration layer that makes the biggest difference at this point. The open source models we have are capable of calling tools and the work is getting them to be capable enough to know which tools to call and what to do in response. I think we are leaving the main frame era of AI and entering the PC era already. If there wasn’t a RAM shortage and we all had 2TB of ram and GPUs we would all have large local models or personal APIs serving our teams. That’s why all the labs are moving to the App layer and moving away from being the API for intelligence like they were originally.
- wahnfrieden 4mo agoThey are absolutely not good enough
- digitaltrees 4mo agoI disagree because I am getting real work done. But I have three Mac studios with 1.5 tb of ram and built my own harness around large models in my own ide (propelcode.app). It’s not perfect. And opus ChatGPT 5.5 are better but they’re good enough
- noonething 4mo agoif you had the information to do the task perfectly then those open models should be fine no? if so, your just paying for knowledge at that point.
- digitaltrees 4mo agoYah that's my point.
- wahnfrieden 4mo agoMaybe write “I don’t think I need them. The models we have are good enough for me.” instead then
- digitaltrees 4mo agoWhat do you think I am arguing?
- wahnfrieden 4mo agoThat we don't need better models because they're good enough for our work
- digitaltrees 4mo agoI understand why you drew that conclusion from my post, but that's not what I am arguing in the context of this thread. The OP said "as soon as an open source model of the capability of fable or gpt5.5 are released it's over because the world will build on top of them" which I took to mean some amazing new level of performance is only able to be unlocked with those models. I am arguing that the level of performance the OP seems to imply doesn't require fablw level models for the work the OP envisions because the harnesses can actually drive the same performance increase. There are a few papers that have demonstrated it. And my own use of fable made me feel it was not that big of a jump from opus 4.8 compared to better systems around it. Its a subtle but important distinction.