11 comments

  • cs702 3 minutes ago

    The headline may be right, but the article reads like an ideological rant, full of fluff. The website doesn't inspire much confidence. It describes itself as "Techstrong.ai, powered by Techstrong Group, a Futurum company," and the "About" page is full of breathless hype about AI, probably written by AI. I'm not sure this belongs on HN.

    • pmontra 1 hour ago

      Agreed but I want to see how it plays out. Historically a good Windows computer cost $1000 and it was all it took to start programming. How much does it cost a computer with enough resources to run a good enough AI model for agentic workflows and a reasonable time to first token? Can "most of the world" afford buying one?

      • prmoustache 11 minutes ago

        What is Open-Source AI? Has it been defined?

        By all accounts, all AI companies starting with open are doing proprietary stuff. All models delivered for free as "open-models" are just freeware as no source is really provided.

        • blakesterz 1 hour ago

          There's a video of the entire session here:

          https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k14/k14ej1ucqu?kalturaStartTim...

          (if that link doesn't work, it starts about 12 minutes into the start)

          • peterlk 34 minutes ago

            Over the long term, it seems like open models must win out. This feels like it rhymes with the story of operating systems. Despite the enormous financial contributions of Microsoft and Apple, linux still won because control matters over the long term.

            I predict that mech interp and things like Neuronpedia will matter more and more over time, and the frontier providers are disincentivized from providing those tools

            • mbgerring 1 hour ago

              There is no reason we should accept the enclosure of the digital commons represented by AI. The data these models are trained on amounts to the total intellectual and artistic output of human kind through recorded history. It belongs to all of us, and accordingly, so should the models and weights produced by it.

              • robwwilliams 1 hour ago

                Yann is on the mark. Almost amusing to see the EU along with its many former “subjects” realize they are at great risk of joint Chinese-American hegemony in AI. We should all be more terrified of a few nation states defining the agendas and policies of AI use than current Ai variants that a inherently without purpose or autonomy.

                Great analogy to the fear of the printing press being really bad news in that it enabled the rabble to get aroused.

                • dippogriff 48 minutes ago

                  Edge models will get much better after the current insane capex and organic data for pre-training is dried out. But hard to see how the best open source models will ever come close to the best closed ones.

                  • randomuser558 55 minutes ago

                    Open-source models democratize access to foundational technology, reducing vendor lock-in risk for organizations. The community iteration model can also accelerate improvements in edge cases that proprietary teams might deprioritize.

                    • paxys 1 hour ago

                      We aren’t going to have Open Source AI without Open Source hardware specs and Open Source manufacturing. Software has been solo driving open computing for far too long, and with AI now the bottlenecks are finally moving up the stack.

                      • echelon 1 hour ago

                        We don't need rinky-dink RTX models that budget VRAM.

                        We need large scale open weights models just as capable as what's at the frontier.

                        And we need the ability to rent compute and spin up the weights easily. One-click, easy enough for anyone. Easier than nerd tools like ComfyUI, Claw, and node graph garbage.

                        Freedom is owning very large scale weights. Anything less is subsistence.