2 ms·
>open models are inherently decelerationist, ungovernable, and will slow development on the frontier Ungovernable makes intuitive sense, but I don’t understand
by derektank 3mo ago
>open models are inherently decelerationist, ungovernable, and will slow development on the frontier
Ungovernable makes intuitive sense, but I don’t understand how open weight models could be decelerationist or slow the development of the frontier. Was there an argument for those positions?
- newpavlov 3mo agoOpen weight models challenge the "winner takes all" hypothesis, which motivates the astronomical valuations and acts as a justification for trains of cash dumped into AI development. In other words, if AI models become a commodity, the "AI leaders" will not be able to burn the cash like they do today, thus resulting in a "slower" (one could say instead "more sustainable") development of AI models.
- whattheheckheck 3mo agoTough shit welcome to capitalism
- vatsachak 3mo agoWell maybe they should find better training methods or architectures
- calebkaiser 3mo agoHere's his original post https://x.com/i/status/2078133895766114412 https://x.com/i/status/2078133895766114412
- wat10000 3mo agoIt's a copy/paste of the arguments against open source software from decades ago. The argument goes: innovation requires profit motive, and profit motive requires IP rights. Of course, this was soundly disproven in software and I don't see any reason it should be different here.
- skeledrew 3mo agoChinese providers are actively debunking that argument by innovating on and releasing open weight models.
- scott_weber 3mo agoThe difference might be the immense cost of physical infrastructure needed for AI training. People would make open source contributions for free, TSMC, NVIDIA and power companies seems less likely to make free contributions to AI.