| ▲ | romanovcode 7 hours ago |
| Nobody will have any interest if they are not open |
|
| ▲ | kingcauchy 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yeah agreed, especially for legal and healthcare models. [edit] I'd go one step further too and say the training data should be explicitly requestable too so third parties can verify (freedom of information act styles). |
| |
|
| ▲ | amunozo 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not in the West, but they will be in China and the rest of the world. |
| |
| ▲ | yipinwong 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | bold claim with "the rest of the world". more like rest of the 3rd world |
|
|
| ▲ | miroljub 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If you are not self-hosting on your hardware inside your network, why do you care whether the model is open or not? |
| |
| ▲ | anon373839 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | This model would be self hostable quite easily (~$14k hardware investment) if it’s released as open weights, since the base model is GLM 5.3-Flash. If not, it’s completely DOA for legal use. | |
| ▲ | camdenreslink 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In theory if your provider raised rates you could switch providers with an open model. So price competition would be one reason. | |
| ▲ | verdverm 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | because vendors stop serving models and it is good to be able to choose to self host for any reason at any time we can start out with the hosted version for evaluation and then self host for production and real customers |
|
