Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'd agree but we're beyond hopelessly idealistic. That sort of approach only helps your competition who will use it to build a closed product and doesn't give anything of worth to people who want to actually use the model because they have no means to train it. Hell most people can barely scrape up enough hardware to even run inference.

Reproducing models is also not very ecological in when it comes down to it, do we really all need to redo the training that takes absurd amounts of power just to prove that it works? At least change the dataset to try and get a better result and provide another datapoint, but most people don't have the knowhow for it anyway.

Nvidia does try this approach sometimes funnily enough, they provide cool results with no model in hopes of getting people to buy their rented compute and their latest training platform as a service...



> I'd agree but we're beyond hopelessly idealistic. That sort of approach only helps your competition who will use it to build a closed product

That same argument can be applied to open-source (non-model) software, and is about as true there. It comes down to the business model. If anything, crating a closed-sourced copy of a piece of FOSS software is easier than an AI model since running a compiler doesn't cost millions of dollars.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: