[ares623]

The usual response to this is the "but high level languages are deterministic blah blah blah" (which IMO would be a good enough argument but well, we know how this goes now)

I posit a different argument. When you install a compiler on your computer, that compiler is "yours" for as long as you have the binary. You are able to completely forget about assembly because of 1. reliable _enough_ compiler 2. reliable access to said compiler.

Let's rewind decades back and pretend that the very first assembly compiler was behind a monthly subscription*. Do you think we'd be in the same place now?

Now the natural follow up to this "but the open models are close to SotA now". Well why aren't we using them? Do we really think we'd have a GNU moment for """open""" models? And are we willing to bet our industry on that?

But my point is, _these are not the same things_ and positing them as such is frankly insulting. How good are you at writing assembly when your compiler is inevitably taken away?

* I'm not a historian so I wouldn't be surprised some version of them were

[lentil_soup]

This is a great point! And not only a compiler behind a subscription, it's also a compiler whose financial interests are not aligned to be the best compiler but the one that makes the most money, which is unclear what it means at this moment. Will it have ads? Will it give preference to some technology over another? Will it steal your code? It's an unreliable and opaque compiler!

[fc417fc802]

> Well why aren't we using them?

We are though? It just depends on the task and the costs.

> Do we really think we'd have a GNU moment for """open""" models? And are we willing to bet our industry on that?

Yes and yes. We're in the mainframe era. But history this time around is passing us by at a ridiculously fast clip. Local models become "good enough" for new tasks by the day, after which they continue to shrink for a given performance level.

I'm not going to bet against either moore's law or relentless increases in model efficiency any time soon.

[rblatz]

There is an argument that I’ve been seeing more recently that argues why we should expect open models to eventually reach good enough status that people use them over frontier commercial models.

Basically it boils down to geopolitics, the US economy is currently being propped up by a small subset of companies, and a lot of that is based on proprietary models and speculation in the market around them. China is going to continue to dump better and better free models out to complete. Thus pulling the rug out on all that speculation.

Helping neutralize their biggest rival.

[designerarvid]

Zoom out and take an anthropological view: relevant human skills become irrelevant over time.

I’m not here to say that’s good or fun.