There’s no reason to believe that companies running open weights models would use consumer hardware. I can speak on behalf of my employer and say that we’d vastly prefer to have enterprise grade servers running inference on premises.

Not consumer demand. I was assuming that it's Nvidia's interest that intelligence is not only in a couple of frontier lab's hands, or they can choke the demand to suit their needs. If any company can access a frontier model without going through the frontier labs, the ecosystem will be larger and healthier for everyone, including Nvidia.

I think the vast majority of gpu’s serving open models are in those data centers

Open weights models in the data center are more important than on consumer devices.

In the future, even consumers will launch weights and fine tunes they own in the cloud.

People don't own the fiber to their home, so why should they expect to run the GPUs? If they want smart coding and video models, they'll need H200s and B200s, and they'll need to rent them.

Covenant-72B

https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.08163

https://huggingface.co/1Covenant/Covenant-72B

Someone’s surely doing it atm we just don’t know yet. And then we scan all books but the stuff stays local. Perhaps possible, perhaps not. But I don’t see why everyone could not run given the epoch on his content only, reporting back findings (loss).

is it mathematically viable ? (aka no regression)

Training neural networks is requires extremely high speed interconnect between the humongous GPUs

> Either way, Mistral is a failing company with little relevance in the AI space and that's not going to save them.

Already ? I was wondering when some US based company will buy them including all that "soverignity" prompts :)

Local llms are what we need and to get that we need memory so we need computer builders from outside of US. Why ? Because when something external appears US companies also allows US citizens to have that too at lower price :) Not before external forces force them to be suddenly good hearted to their own peoples...

Can we also have coarser MoE's ? If I want to code I do not need llm be trained on past and present capitol names and chemistry and everything unrelevant to the task ! Watch Matrix again ! We need somewhat "inteligent" llms and knowledge can be uploaded just like Neo learned kung-fu :) - prompts and light tr^h^hweek of learning and some exams, we need kind of university for llms :) So llms finally fit into users computers... And when some grandmas or snowflakes start to whine tell them to learn - llms usage can be a skill finally ;)

Edit:

Wait, can we have something like interchengable weights so knowledge can be just downloaded to model folder ? Common weights format ? Reproducible builds ?

Their existence is the only thing keeping costs down across the board. If they had gotten open-weight model importing banned in the US a year ago, I'm sure they'd have 100% increased token cost relative to the advertised 100%+ intelligence improvements.

They stole your data? Like, they took the text you wrote on the internet and removed it and kept it to themselves?

Ownership of data was a farcical concept to begin with. Now we have a farce squared

Why cant the community piece together the open-weights using open community-based like, implementation or whatever magic sauce integrates those weights

I don't think "you can do whatever you want other than just turn around and sell a chat wrapper for this" makes it immediately not open weights. Could it be more open? Sure. That doesn't mean it's misleading or a lie and I would strong disagree that it's "not being remotely open."

Sure but people used "open weight" for weights that were open, because "open source" doesn't make much sense for something that has no source.

Now we have these "open inspired but not open" licensed weights and they want to keep the term.

I'll stick with DS4.1 flash. Open and capable

I'm a little confused by your distinction between vendor and lab. AI2 (Allen Institute for AI) is a western lab and they did release a fully open source model, with open weights, data, and training code (Olmo3).

Their technical report on the release is excellent: https://allenai.org/blog/olmo3

They're a public research institute as opposed to one of the proprietary frontier labs, but they've been very open about the science.

K2 horizon is the closest to actually releasing everything that I am aware of https://ifm.ai/blog/k2/

Nobody can do that because they were all trained on stolen content

Allen AI imposes further restrictions on their model releases, I think: https://allenai.org/responsible-use

Great idea, let’s counter the power of a handful of large private organisations by putting that power in the hands of a single large government. What could possibly go wrong?

I think this is a quite optimistic view... releasing a SOTA model is a collosal capital investment, and unlike free software, it's not iterative - you can't make a small model and improve it one step at a time, you need to risk the whole load of cash, expertise and GPU time up front.

It's only happening now because labs have bucket tons of VC cash to burn and need a big public flex to raise more cash, or because they're subsidised by the Chinese government. I'm not massively confident either of those will stay true forever.

Unless "some nerds" means "billionaires" - they may want to release new models as open source, but they will not have enough money to train a worthwhile model.

OpenAI really should change the name to something like EgoAI or AltmanAI.

Of course they can. They're expensive to host, and if they're legally scrubbed off of places like huggingface then they are for all practical purposes 'closed' as in unavailable to people who don't already use them and if they're illegal or outpaced by Sota the ones who have copies can't even use them.

Only one way to find out!

"In the meaning of the European Union Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases,the term database refers to a collection of independent works, data or other materials, which have been arranged in a systematic or methodical way, and have been made individually accessible by electronic or other means. In the meaning of the Directive the data or materials:

    must not be linked, or must be capable of separation without losing their informative content;
    must be organised according to specific criteria, which means that only planned collections are covered;
    must be individually accessible – mere storage of data is not covered by the term database."

https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/regional...?

Its actually not settled yet wrt copyright.

However, there is a more straightforward solution. The allows general use inside a company. The license blocks the "Model-as-a-Service".

So instead, any GPU holder can provide a 'Infrastructure-as-a-service' and have clients provide the model, and then tell the clients that as an optimization they can also provide just the hash and they'll load it from their memory.

I think its good that this license pushes the ecosystem towards such a generic-utility framework, but as a moat to protect a business its banking on most companies being lazy and wasteful.

That pays off more than people like to admit.

I've not heard anything about model outputs. Do you have an actual case to cite?

Can you link to a specific ruling that supports this?

Copyright doesn't care whether it's expensive. The fact that someone else, with the infrastructure and training data could get the same or almost the same weights makes it obvious there's no human originality in the weights, which means they aren't eligible for copyright. Some aspect of the infrastructure or processing of the training data might be copyrightable (or patentable), but the weights themselves? No human originality. No copyright.

Looks like the consensus is much more leaning into the direction of non copyrightable.

Understandable. Still not open source.

Are they? https://github.com/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V3/blob/main/LICENSE...

> (and of course Kimi, Qwen, etc)

Latest versions of Kimi, Qwen, GLM aren't open, you need to pay them for commercial stuff and comply with PRC laws

they are open for everything EXCEPT renting it with a neocloud type business that sells tokens. are you running a neocloud? why do you care?

This is, but is still limited by their license: https://github.com/hashicorp/vault

Yes. I do see people describe Kimi models as as open weights all the time, and they have somewhat similar licensing restrictions to this

Shareware/freeware?

My bad I stand corrected.

I absolutely want that to be available.

The only way to make sure that a model was trained without hiding weird biases and backdoors is to monitor this process. It also allows anybody (with the hardware resources) to experiment with the model and how it's trained. Will most people want to do that? No, but most people also don't want to recompile their own kernel, that doesn't negate the value of Linux being FOSS.

I hope that, in the long term, I'll be able to use competitive, completely open models in the same way that I can run Linux on my computer.

You're completely right that the licensing of the training data is a big issue though (and I would argue that it should be a much bigger issue right now, even for closed models). I hope that eventually our understanding of the tech will let us build competitive LLMs using purely public domain/Creative Commons-style training data.

I realize that we have a long way to go... but that's a very worthwhile goal IMO.

I don't usually compile my kernel from scratch, but I'm very glad that the source is open.

> And wouldn't making that "open source" violate every license that the original data has? You can't release someone else's work.

Tangent, and not the person you're replying to, but you just independently re-discovered why so many of us despise the AI companies.

Because that's what they are already doing. Selling a repackaged form of the stolen work of all of humanity, without credit or payment.

How else do you want to reproduce a model if you don't have the training data?

You can read and edit binary code just fine, it's much easier with AI too

Indeed.

You can hardly re-create the binary from a suitable source, just like the weights just fell from the sky. But you can change the binary (patch the machine code) just like you can adjust the weights. The comparison is quite apt.

The whole reverse engineering and cracking scene is built upon this premise, you know.

Yes?