5 ms·
A third the cost, open source, and won't refuse every other request because of some vague possible connection to cybersecurity concerns.
by culi 3mo ago
A third the cost, open source, and won't refuse every other request because of some vague possible connection to cybersecurity concerns.
- OutOfHere 3mo agoOr biology or chemistry.
- SXX 3mo agoOr weapons manufacturing. It can refuse to answer on a lot of topics.
- estearum 3mo agohmm almost like the exact race-to-the-bottom + arms-race dynamic all the doomers have been warning about
- andrewmutz 3mo agoOne man's offensive penetration tool is another mans defensive tool. In the recent HuggingFace/OpenAI incident the safety controls stood in the way of the defenders, not the attackers: https://www.thestack.technology/hugging-face-hacked-turned-to-chinese-llm-for-help-after-us-models-blocked-blue-team/ https://www.thestack.technology/hugging-face-hacked-turned-t...
- estearum 3mo agoYou're presenting further evidence of lack of effective control over these systems as... a mitigating factor...?
- californical 3mo agoWhy do you assume they're disagreeing with you?
- estearum 3mo ago> One man's offensive penetration tool is another mans defensive tool. seems to suggest the author believes there's some intrinsic equilibrium Which, 1) is definitely not proven and not guaranteed (open to proofs otherwise, not pithy sayings that have zero normative effect on reality) 2) is apparently "supported by" further evidence of lack of effective control, which does not feel like equilibrium whatsoever
- ekidd 3mo agoApparently, the attacker in the Hugging Face case was reported to be an internal OpenAI model trying to break into HF and steal the answers to cybersecurity benchmarks: https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-model-evaluation-security-incident/ https://openai.com/index/hugging-face-model-evaluation-secur... It really doesn't matter what restrictions are placed on public use of models if the attacking models are internal models at the AI labs themselves. So if the AI labs are literally running rogue models breaking into other organizations' servers, then yes, I am OK with those organizations self-hosting Chinese models for defensive use.
- estearum 3mo agoWhat? The issue is that models are not well-controlled and are increasingly powerful. Offense/defense/Chinese/American/OAI/HuggingFace – none of it matters. What matters is introducing highly capable intelligences that we - quite demonstrably – do not have effective positive control over.
- toomuchtodo 3mo agoRace to the bottom for the investors, utility for the rest of us. The future is already here, it’s just not evenly distributed yet (Gibson).
- skinfaxi 3mo agoDoom for whom?
- estearum 3mo agoWell considering it was just a few months ago that OpenAI had the brilliant idea of connecting these systems to autonomously run an actual protein synthesis wetlab, very possibly all of us.
- rogerrogerr 3mo agoHoly shit, how’d I miss that? https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-lowers-protein-synthesis-cost/ https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-lowers-protein-synthesis-cost... Forget Iran, this place is what we’re going to wish we’d bombed.
- dgellow 3mo agoMy questions about strawberries got blocked as too dangerous! I’m not joking
- shikon7 3mo agoStrawberries are a well known weakness of LLMs, as they have a hard time to count the numbers of "r"s in them. Maybe that's why, because they fear that weakness could be exploited somehow.
- skeledrew 3mo agoProbably need to be taught by someone of Latino origin. Learning to roll them "r"s could help.
- verdverm 3mo agoI always thought this should be easier by telling it to write each letter one a new line, then count, any token separator ought to suffice, so much so you'd think they'd have trained in this strategy given tokens make individual letters opaque
- HDBaseT 3mo agoStrawberries aren't the weakness, the weakness is the tokenization of a prompt. Any word with multiple duplicate characters is going to be troublesome for LLMs.
- fnordpiglet 3mo agoInterestingly the reality of the open source release is they are opening up to full distillation by the closed source model providers at a deeper and more fundamental level. If anything the open sourcing will help Anthropic and open ai ladder up faster. Open source has always been about mutual cooperation towards a goal and has never closed the door to commercial success. All the hand wringing about open weight models putting closed providers at a disadvantage doesn’t get what working in the open actually does for commercial interests - it is like science in the open - it enables and lifts all boats. Likewise commercial success doesn’t close the opportunity for competition or more open source work - it’s the economy of activity and competition that matters overall. When things stagnate is when closer concerns turtle up and collude on not competing for each others turf. The future is good and better for everyone the more work is in the open and the more work is in the commercial space. It’s good all around.
- linkregister 3mo agoI'm happy that Kimi K3 is indeed SotA and its open weights are due to be released soon. It's also true that Moonshot and other labs distill from Claude. This has been reported on extensively. I don't think there's any alpha for Anthropic distilling from this model. I do not mean to discount the tremendous amount of innovation regarding MoE and quantization that Moonshot has accomplished. But its training with synthetic data is in large part from distillation from frontier labs.
- fnordpiglet 3mo agoWhen I say distill I also mean mine it architecturally for insights but I doubt seriously the model training is entirely distillation of Claude, it’s almost certainly a mixture of both original corpus and reinforcement as well as distillation. I think it’s a little condescending to imply that these new open models are cheap ripoffs with nothing original to them. These teams and labs are top tier as well, working under unreasonable constraints imposed by the USG. That’s a powerful combination for creativity.
- linkregister 3mo ago
- mikae1 3mo agoFor regular chat users it's $19 while Claude is $20...
- AlexErrant 3mo ago$20 users don't get access to Fable. It's $100+ tier only.
- mikae1 3mo agoTrue. However, I believe most non-programmers don't need access to the fanciest model, but just want to use a good LLM without constant nagging about usage limits. Then 19 vs. 20 is true?
- potwinkle 3mo agoStill no. If you're only getting Opus-class you can still end up paying less by just using an equivalent Chinese model on OpenRouter.
- mikae1 3mo agoNot talking about me or HN users in general. These companies likely need regular peeps to begin using their services in order to become profitable. Not sure these are the ones who will buy from OpenRouter.
- culi 3mo agoNo "19 vs 20" is not true for "Kimi vs Fable". It might be true for "Kimi vs Opus" or whatever. Anyways looking at pricing plans is not a good way of comparing the price of LLMs. It makes more sense to look at cost per token: Kimi K3: $3/$15 (input/output) Fable: $10/$50
- skeledrew 3mo agoI'm a $20 user and was given $100 extra usage credit today, "for Fable" (I'll be sticking to Sonnet and sometimes Opus TYVM).
- villish 3mo agoFrom the blog post moonshot refers to it as open source but only mentions releasing the weights.
- charcircuit 3mo agoThe weights are the "source" of a model.
- tadfisher 3mo agoIf weights are the source for models then ELF binaries are the source for software.
- RobMurray 3mo agoclearly not true. the weights are the preferred form for making modifications. Do you really think people should be downloading hundreds of TB of training data and running make to build the model on their own cluster of GPUs?
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- villish 3mo agoRandom people? No. Governments and big corporations? Yes. It removes any concern of "backdoors", and is currently the best starting point for your own model which will be as capable as k3.
- cookiengineer 3mo agoEverything is open source if you know how to reverse engineer ;)
- tadfisher 3mo agoThen everyone is open source if you have $20 to spend on tokens, I guess.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- wand3r 3mo agoThere is too much business risk in running on an American company. They can pull the model back or lobotimize it. No Alex Karp fan, but he was right: companies are worried about hyperscalers stealing their alpha. The lack of guardrails, data security and control really give these open models the edge. If you factor in that they appear to cost less, the hyperscalers are in big trouble. I don't see how this works out. Software was always supposed to be deflationary and collapse down to 0 marginal cost but this isn't remotely the case. It's truly amazing to see the state of open weight models