I notice four downvotes so far for stating a fact that a debate exists. My comment above didn't even make a normative claim. For those who study AI risks, there is indeed a _debate_ about the pros and cons of open weights. The question of "what are the implications of open-weight models?" is not an ideological one; it is a logical and empirical one.
I'm not complaining; it is useful to get an aggregated signal. In a sense, I like the downvotes, because it means there are people I might be able to persuade.
So how do I make the case? Remember, I'm not even making an argument for one side or the other! My argument is simply: be curious. If appropriate, admit to yourself e.g. "you know, I haven't actually studied all sides of the issue yet; let me research and write down my thinking..."
Here's my claim: when it comes to AI and society, you gotta get out of your own head. You have to get out of the building. You might even have to get out of Silicon Valley. Go learn about arguments for and against open-weights models. You don't have to agree with them.
Experimental research model with enhanced visual reasoning capabilities.
Supports context length of 128k.
Currently, the model only supports single-round dialogues and image outputs. It does not support video inputs.
Should be capable of images up to 12 MP.