83 pointsby gmays10 hours ago12 comments
  • Zaraif135 hours ago
    It's becoming more clear that for big enterprises to really adopt AI, they need to use open models. Especially if they want to own their own intelligence, which they should.

    I spent the last 2 days building basic AI agents to automate some mundane supply chain workflows for a large company. Those seemingly boring workflows had bank statements, supplier IDs and other sensitive information.

    For me it was all alarm bells, there is no way they can afford to give closed models access to this data. I was compelled to figure out an open model based solution for them, which made me realize that this is probably the only way for enterprises going forward.

    • mentalgearan hour ago
      Everybody including companies need their own models, especially considering that llm providers like openAi have no problem siphoning off your data and intelligence by inspecting metadata. and claiming any resulting value as their own.
    • solidasparagusan hour ago
      Why does this necessitate using closed models? I don't see the difference between putting your data on a cloud DB and using a cloud model.
    • ramshanker5 hours ago
      Same here. We are at a stage where we are evaluating cost/benefit for my enterprise. I am heavily pushing for in house hardware with open models.
    • bpodgursky5 hours ago
      I've actually flipped on this the last few days because of liability.

      The big labs are going to be on the hook for rogue behavior by Claude or Sol. Customers will be able to sue for damages and deflect regulators if their customer data is abused or their agents attack external services.

      If you use a Chinese OSS model and it goes rogue? Yeah good luck with that, your shop is 100% on the hook.

      • Jedd2 hours ago
        People - usually suit-wearers - have been making this spurious claim for decades, but it doesn't hold water.

        The largest of the finest print reminding you that it's 'sold as is' (or more encompassing variants that might continue '... with no warranty for fitness of purpose') means that liability remains in the lap of the purchaser / consumer / operator.

        (This has been a source of immense frustration over my career - where such people have assured me that they have 'recourse' (it's always vaguely described) by spending money on proprietary products & services, rather than opting for functionally equivalent or superior free options.)

        I think your third paragraph is implying a distinction (or conflating the difference?) between LLMaaS's and self-hosting publicly available models.

        If it's just where it's hosted that provides the legal insulation then things like OpenRouter would give you that. (But again, I suggest that it would not.)

      • the_sleaze_5 hours ago
        > The big labs are going to be on the hook for rogue behavior

        They haven't so far.

        • donw2 hours ago
          ... when are large companies on the hook for anything, ever?

          I mean, hypothetically, yes, but class-action lawsuits get settled out-of-court, the lawyers get paid in Ferrari-multiples, the plaintiffs get paid in McDonalds coupons that expire in two weeks.

          Slaps-on-the-wrist are written into the laws; a million-dollar fine is existential for a small company, and likely not even a line-item at Anthropic.

        • bpodgursky4 hours ago
          Enterprises have barely deployed empowered agents yet. The models capable of doing this have only been available for months. Give it a little time, it's coming.
  • silverFork9 hours ago
    Impressive you know. They are a few months behind but still the world uses their models. Bet you because the users suspect that Americans will pull the rug from under them. Few months behind versus being left behind forever. Would have been nice to know the differences in spending between the models but I suspect the data is impossible to collect.
    • matheusmoreira6 hours ago
      It's not a suspicion, it has actually happened. US government briefly banned Fable for non-americans, and the american corporations pick and choose who has access to their unrestricted models which in practice excludes even american citizens, to say nothing of foreigners like myself.

      They are literally segmenting the world into haves and have-nots, just like nuclear power. Thank god China is out there and constantly undermining them with their non-stop open weights model releases.

      The best situation for us mere mortals is one where they struggle against each other endlessly without any hope of victory. The second either the US or China wins, it's pretty much over for us and unimaginable oppression will quickly follow.

    • lowbloodsugar8 hours ago
      They are good enough and vastly cheaper. It’s not fear of the future. It’s economic reality of the present.
      • amirmc8 hours ago
        That’s certainly part of it. I think people underestimate the value of getting to ‘good enough’. Once that’s reached, the economics start to be more of a factor in decision making.

        However, I think geopolitics has also become a factor as the very existence of this article indicates.

        • esseph8 hours ago
          > However, I think geopolitics has also become a factor

          The world powers have only said things like "bigger and more important than the Manhattan project”.

          So what gives you that idea?

  • avazhi20 minutes ago
    As an aside, it’s always funny to me that anybody outside of Europe listens to anything the Europeans say about AI. The Europeans literally have zero skin in the game. Their entire raison d’être is just to pass regulations that they then attempt to extraterritorially enforce, but they contribute almost nothing to the area of interest. It’s legit insane to me. The contributions they make vs the amount of inconvenience they are vis-a-vis compliance with their own esoteric rules probably fit some Pareto maximum of 20% of users requiring 80% of the work for compliance. The rest of us (ie, the non-European world) should honestly just point and laugh and then move on when these people try to influence things.
  • tamaker7 hours ago
    Really important work here. Really glad it's being shared a) with US Leadership and b) with the community.
  • JSR_FDEDan hour ago
    I’m super uncomfortable with the idea of a single company or country holding all the cards when it comes to AI. So from that perspective I welcome the Chinese models.

    Additionally, the big labs’ formulation of AI as a US-vs-China national security issue is very convenient for keeping those pesky regulations at bay, and for ensuring the AI financial bubble doesn’t pop before everyone can unload in an IPO first. Both of these offend my sense of fair play.

    The Chinese labs aren’t just putting models out there, they’re publishing and sharing their research and innovation too. That’s just a better way of doing science and contributing to the development of the whole field.

  • verdverm9 hours ago
    This is a prepared statement for congress by Nathan Lambert, author of https://rlhfbook.com/ and AllenAi employee (one of the few who have shared their models as open source)
  • Transformanshen8 hours ago
    DeepSeek and Qwen set a floor American open-weight models can't match without subsidy or a different cost structure, and that price/performance ratio drives adoption more than benchmarks.
    • aesthesia7 hours ago
      It's worth noting that Chinese AI labs aren't profitable, so in some sense they're not doing it without subsidy either.
    • mapontosevenths6 hours ago
      Anthropic is profitable now. They have massive debt looming over them, but they're at least making more than they spend each quarter.
  • kittikitti5 hours ago
    Thank you for sharing this perspective. I agree with the conclusions outlined. However, I would have appreciated more insights into the OpenAI OSS family of models like gpt-oss.
  • aidiscoverywire2 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • pushpendraw38 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • avazhi6 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • enugu6 hours ago
      Not a fan of overregulation killing business, but Europe is definitely an important check against the surveillance powers of big tech companies in US. European regulations become a reference point for the rest of the world, especially poorer countries who dont have power to regulate US tech companies by themselves.
    • sneurlax6 hours ago
      Zero Mistrals in the game eh
      • 6 hours ago
        undefined