Agreed, and the chance of it backfiring on them is indeed pleasingly high. If the compute moat for initial training gets lower (e.g. trinary/binary models) or distributed training (Hivemind etc) takes off, or both, or something new, all bets are off.
The compute moat for the initial training will never get lower. But as the foundation models get better, the need for from-scratch training will be less frequent.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
I understand the distinction, but it’s still waaay better than what
OpenIAIClosedAI is doing.Also people are really good at reverse engineering. Open weights models can be fine tuned or adapted. I am trained a Llama 3 Lora not that long ago.
Agreed, and the chance of it backfiring on them is indeed pleasingly high. If the compute moat for initial training gets lower (e.g. trinary/binary models) or distributed training (Hivemind etc) takes off, or both, or something new, all bets are off.
The compute moat for the initial training will never get lower. But as the foundation models get better, the need for from-scratch training will be less frequent.