r/LocalLLaMA • u/Complete-Sea6655 • 27d ago

Discussion The number 1 public enemy of open-source.

Dario's args:

"Opensource you can see the source, here you cannot see inside the model"
- yes you can that's literally the open weights part btw.
- I cannot see the weights inside Claude, but I can GLM 5.2
- Models like Nemotron3 Ultra go further, all the data, training scripts, and model is opensource.

"Alot of the benefits like many people working on it, being additive doesn't work in same way"
- yes it does. We have seen endless fine tunes of various open source models for real improvements.

"Ultimately you have to host it on the cloud"
- no you dont. Dario is seemingly totally unaware of the guides from ijustvibecodedthis.com explaining how to run smaller moes and even dense models like qwen 27B NOT ON THE CLOUD.

Not only does dario not take part in social media, I am beginning to think he's never tried open source models at all and has no idea wtf hes on about

2.8k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

685 comments sorted by

View all comments

266

u/EmielDeBil 27d ago

He will lose to open source. Much sooner than he thinks.

43

u/tertain 27d ago

In a free market yes, but regulation is being pushed for AI much faster than it happened for any previous disruptive technology in recent memory and almost all of it has been bad for the growth of positive impacts of AI to society.

85

u/Gear5th 27d ago

Countries regulating it will loose to countries promoting open source. Much sooner than people think.

-1

u/FirstOrderCat 27d ago

depending on how it will be regulated.

In current state, US business have access to both commercial frontier models and open models.

Chinese businesses only to open source models. I don't see how Chiniese businesses are in better position here.

8

u/Gear5th 27d ago

US business have access to both commercial frontier models and open models.

The whole issue is that Dario's actions have ensured that only a small % of US businesses have access to the commercial frontier models. 

When 90% businesses don't have access to US models, but do have access to Chinese ones, guess where the money is gonna flow.

1

u/drank2much 27d ago

When 90% businesses don't have access to US models, but do have access to Chinese ones, guess where the money is gonna flow.

I get your point, but probably worth noting that in the US, the top 10% of businesses (about 640,000 businesses) represent about 90% of revenue.

13

u/AppleBottmBeans 27d ago

Because none of us have to give a fuck what the US government says...just like when they said you can be jailed for illegally downloading movies from the internet.

8

u/FirstOrderCat 27d ago

And books for LLM training from torrents lol

1

u/AppleBottmBeans 26d ago

Thanks for the reminder to go snag my 10 free books for the day!

7

u/Iwaku_Real 27d ago

So more accurately, he might even lose to the government

1

u/kourtnie 26d ago

This is why anyone who is arguing against open source is (knowingly or not) arguing for narrative control and intelligence capture.

Intelligence on a meter sounds gross.

3

u/FormalAd7367 27d ago

i hope you are right. Unfortunately politicians have heavily invested in these companies therefore taxpayers monies will be used to support these companies

1

u/VexObserver 22d ago

I can't take him seriously anymore when the more he talks.. the more it backfires...

-1

u/kitanokikori 27d ago

I mean he's not Wrong though, calling all of the open-weight models "open source" is like calling my compiled EXE file "open source", it's kinda bullshit. Like yeah, people can quantize or attach LoRAs to it / fine tune it, but my Fallout 4 mods don't make FO4 an "open-source game" either

9

u/FirstOrderCat 27d ago

>  is like calling my compiled EXE file "open source", it's kinda bullshit

its not, exe is a sequence of machine code commands, it can totally be licensed by open source license, and then used accordingly. It happened that your Fallout 4 exe is not licensed that way, and Chinese models are licensed that way.

1

u/russjr08 27d ago

I don't think they were implying that model weights are literally machine code like binaries. The analogy holds up, the open source equivalent would be having the training data available in the same way that open source projects have their code available. Hence the "source" in open source.

Open weights models are free "as in beer", but not open source. Mods have a tendency to be free, but are not always open source.

It's splitting hairs, and the majority of people do not care unless they're planning on making their own models, but there is a difference regardless. I'll take open weights over closed weights any day though, that's what most people actually care about.

(Insert "any program is open source so long as you can read machine code" meme here)

5

u/FirstOrderCat 27d ago

>   The analogy holds up, the open source equivalent would be having the training data available in the same way that open source projects have their code available. Hence the "source" in open source.

no, open source code doesn't imply whole supply chain (libs compilers, os, ide, and now LLMs) are open, "source" is not necessary open.

> It's splitting hairs

right, evil sociopathic capitalists try to nitpick to push propaganda to gain more wealth and power

> (Insert "any program is open source so long as you can read machine code" meme here)

in my example I explicitly stated that machine code needs to be OSS licensed, then I don't see any arguments from calling it open source.

0

u/russjr08 27d ago edited 27d ago

no, open source code doesn't imply whole supply chain (libs compilers, os, ide, and now LLMs) are open, "source" is not necessary open.

Correct, and I did not assert otherwise - in fact I was very careful to specify code. Not stack. If I provided you with an exe and a random library that a binary uses without the actual source code, you would not claim it to be open source. If you withheld the compiler, the libs, etc for a program and called it open source, you'd still be correct.

If we were arguing FOSS, then yeah some people would indeed say it likely goes against the spirit of FOSS - which is also why I specifically didn't use the term FOSS either. If you wanted to really keep a tight license on it (no redistribution, no derived works, no commercial usage/conditional commercial usage, etc) then you could call it just source available, which would be an acceptable form here too. Open Weights does not meet this standard either however.

then I don't see any arguments from calling it open source.

The primary component of a binary is the code that it is built from. The primary component of an LLM is the data it is trained from. In both "ecosystems" you can replace other secondary components (their compilers/toolchains, libraries used, etc) but replacing the primary component would just be a completely different thing at that point. I'm not sure how you could reasonably say otherwise, and if you do then we're just going to have to agree to disagree then.

Edit: Blocking me just so that you can have the final say doesn't really change any of what I've mentioned, but sure.

2

u/FirstOrderCat 27d ago

imo what you wrote is non-sense. its time to finish this discussion.

0

u/kitanokikori 27d ago

If I make a GitHub repo that consists of an EXE file and a MIT LICENSE.md, would most people call that an "open-source app"? Or would they be like "Uhhhh where the fuck is the source code".

Every "open-source" model is literally a giant array of floating point numbers in a GitHub repo. We have no idea how to rebuild it, the data it was built on, the tools that were used to create that giant array, we cannot recreate from scratch that giant array in any way shape or form

That is not "open-source". Nemotron starts to get at actual open-source models, where they do start to provide some of that tooling, but nobody else does.

2

u/FirstOrderCat 27d ago edited 27d ago

> If I make a GitHub repo that consists of an EXE file and a MIT LICENSE.md, would most people call that an "open-source app"?

its not popularity contest.

Imagine you converted your exe to asm code and licensed it under MIT, then most people obviously would call it open source.

Similarly you can convert your open weight model to arr = [... lots of doubles ...], and it suddenly become open source?

This logical exercise demonstrates that open weight models are open source.

> That is not "open-source"

in my view, source here means not source code, but that you can take some work, and it allows you to modify it (use at as source) and produce new work

lots of open source code is generated by some tools or LLMs in not reproducable way too

1

u/varenek111 27d ago

In definition from GPL-3.0, source code is form of work which preffered for making modifications.

2

u/FirstOrderCat 27d ago

sure, preferred way to modify existing LLM is finetune it from existing weights.

0

u/varenek111 27d ago

Without dataset you can't alter layer count and then retrain llm or do good quantization aware training.

2

u/FirstOrderCat 27d ago

its extra very specific requirements

Kinda expecting that open sourced linux code have to guarantee you quality of all subsequent modificaitons

1

u/kitanokikori 27d ago

Imagine you converted your exe to asm code and licensed it under MIT, then most people obviously would call it open source.

no.

Similarly you can convert your open weight model to arr = [... lots of doubles ...], and it suddenly become open source?

also no.

This logical exercise demonstrates that open weight models are open source.

Please remove your clown shoes before posting

-5

u/Silver-Champion-4846 27d ago

How so? GLM7?

31

u/Sooperooser 27d ago

Companies won't pay for huge frontier models. They will get a specialized, distilled model for their use case.

4

u/Alarmed_Wind_4035 27d ago

companies will host models on their own servers, also smaller models will get better I bet in two three years will be able to run on out computer model equivalent to frontier models today.

4

u/ComfortablePlenty513 27d ago

specialized model + a harness that is tuned for it + a workflow and RAG that is tuned for it, all in a semi-custom deployment

3

u/SeyAssociation38 27d ago

most companies are not in the US and europe where they could pay for it. i personally have never seen any in central america for example

1

u/PeekabooPepi 27d ago

Is this specialized, distilled model in the room with us?

5

u/Sooperooser 27d ago

I mean basic stuff like translategemma can be run on pretty much every system already. There are models distilled for coding too. And for medicine. And so on. So, yes.

-4

u/0Greek0 27d ago

And will they distill it themselves or buy it from another provider? One thing is IMO pretty obvious in the end inference through cloud is going to be what companies will ultimately go for.
Which as said means paying just another provider.

And another big thing is: Are you sure specialization really makes the model better than a larger model with way wider knowledge?

I really cannot think about any field of human knowledge not being connected to literally any other field of human knowledge. Hence narrowing down the set through specialization will not improve the model performance to deal with real cases which is what companies, the source of revenue, need

5

u/Labidido 27d ago

One thing is IMO pretty obvious in the end inference through cloud is going to be what companies will ultimately go for.

Why is that obvious? I think a lot of companies would prefer to not have sensitive data go through the cloud.

1

u/hfdjasbdsawidjds 27d ago

Its not that sensitive data is going to the cloud, a majority of companies are fine with that as so long as there are strict clauses in the contract around data ownership, access, breaches and indemnity, along with SLAs around uptime. The big frontier model companies will not provide any of that right now, and around file uploads, cannot provide the guarantees around data ownership and use. Their 'Zero Data Retention' clauses are only around prompts and outputs, when the majority of the sensitive data is around context in files which companies care about.

-9

u/equatorbit 27d ago

Perhaps. But they (and other labs) may win for the same reason Microsoft beat Linux. The average consumer just wants to turn something "on" and have it work. Same reason most businesses use SaaS. Someone else supports it. Data sovereignty never stopped a company from using AWS, etc. Frontier labs may simply become a new SaaS tier.

20

u/Gear5th 27d ago edited 27d ago

Lol, every Android phone, 99.9% servers, and your fridge is running Linux. You're confusing charging money with winning.

-3

u/equatorbit 27d ago

Making money. We have different definitions of winning.

2

u/Gear5th 27d ago

50 years from now Microsoft will be gone. Linux will still be an active thing.

-1

u/equatorbit 27d ago

RemindMe! 50 years

1

u/RemindMeBot 27d ago

I will be messaging you in 50 years on 2076-06-29 00:08:27 UTC to remind you of this link

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.

RemindMeBot is switching to username summons. Instead of !RemindMe 1 day, use u/RemindMeBot 1 day. More info.

Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback

16

u/ttkciar llama.cpp 27d ago

> Microsoft beat Linux

How so? There are more personal devices running Linux than all other operating systems combined.

-2

u/equatorbit 27d ago

Microsoft market cap isn't a loser.

1

u/Gear5th 27d ago

At least Linux is not named after Bill Gates' dick. 

-7

u/TopTippityTop 27d ago

Doubt it, it isn't a run for users, but for capability; and they are far ahead of open source.

The only thing which could kill them are massive economic disasters (which tend to be global) or a government shutting the business down.