Sam Altman is ready to decelerate | TechCrunch
techcrunch.com
His change of position comes after "the first security incident that I have felt very viscerally."

Supposedly the change of heart came after “the first security incident that I have felt very viscerally,” the Huggingface escape. To me it sounds like he’s worried about the competition breathing down his neck and wants someone to come in and call a time-out.

  • Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    22·
    2 days ago

    He wants regulations to kill the competition. Open source is gonna get fucked in the coming months. The whole media campaign has been specifically for this.

    • ricdeh@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      12 hours ago

      If it was, then it spectacularly backfired. Support for open-weight models is greater than ever before, both from the general public and tech giants.

      In the wake of OpenAI agents attacking Hugging Face, Nvidia has recruited a new posse of partners to promote open source models as the security solution the industry needs. The AI arms dealer announced the foundation, the Open Secure AI Alliance, in a blog post today, describing the mission of the group being “to ensure defenders everywhere have open, frontier tools they can trust and control.”

      Partners in the group are numerous, ranging from established tech giants like Microsoft, Red Hat, HPE, IBM, and Adobe to newer groups like Palantir, SpacexAI, Hugging Face, and The Linux Foundation. What all the founding members have in common, Nvidia said, is that they agree open source AI models are a fundamental part of modern cybersecurity, just like prior open source tech has been for the infosec space.

      Tech giants link hands to praise open AI models after OpenAI - Hugging Face attack

      Edit: typo fix

    • k0e3@lemmy.caEnglish
      3·
      1 day ago

      Sorry if this is a dumb question but I keep seeing open source and open weight when talking about LLMs. Are these two terms interchangeable? If not, what do they mean and which is correct?

      • melfie@lemmy.zipEnglish
        2·
        21 hours ago

        Open weight is like getting a compiled binary with no source code. Without the training data and pipeline code, once the original developer stops releasing new versions, it’ll be difficult for the community to pick up and keep going.

        For example, if Alibaba decides to only release trillion parameter models from now on, Qwen 3.6 may be the most intelligent Qwen model that will ever run on consumer hardware.

      • Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        1 day ago

        They mostly are interchangeable for most people but almost none of the llm weights are properly open source.

        They don’t always give the training scripts and never the actual data so it isn’t reproducible. The data isn’t really feasible to give. A lot of them release papers at the same time where they explain the training with snippets and how it works, but it’s not the same as receiving a script.

        That being said, some get really upset and stress the distinction but it’s a bit silly imo. If it’s free and easily fine tunable, I don’t really see the issue of calling it open source. Giving the data for it would open them up to lawsuits from the copyright mafia and wouldn’t bring much to the table. Training these models is completely out of reach for individual and small to medium sized organisations.

        Training a small model was more than a million dollars in compute a year or two ago.