• BL4CKP1XX13@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 days ago

    If the model is adequately FOSS, i.e. open weights, and can run on a single consumer GPU (or NPU), and the “author” (quotations because I’m personally undecided if one can claim code generated by an aforementioned model is theirs) understands it, then I really don’t see what the problem is…

    Personally I have nothing against SLMs/LLMs as a technologically, to me my grievances against ChatGPT or Claude are mostly about their environmental impacts and selling us back our own art, also keeping knowledge behind a for-profit black-box - if those aren’t appropriate for a specific model, then I say using that model is fair, and good for productivity.

    • Balinares@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      I’d take a model whose training data is open source and legitimately obtained. The only ones I know about are Apertus and OLMo, and they aren’t really competitive.

      • BL4CKP1XX13@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        Unfortunately not yet, no, true FOSS models are likely many years away, but I would argue that that follows typical FOSS lifecycles. Emerging technology is typically outperformed by proprietary endeavors, which creates an audience, and then that audience undertakes a FOSS implementation that initially underperforms, then just about competes, then eventually overtakes (i.e, GNU/Linux).

    • themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      The problem with open weight models is that they are still hard to deploy. For DeepSeek for example you require NVIDIA HGX B200, these things are expensive.

      • Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        If you are really using those things for work, a 32GB VRAM Blackwell currently costs around 3800-4000€. My own experience with local models on my 5070/12GB with 64GB DDR4 has shown me:

        • I can run a Qwen 3.8 35b Q_8 quant (BF16 is a tad too large) using CPU offloading, while still reaching acceptable speeds for private use.
        • Ternary Models are a game changer. Built to be used in edge computing, Bonsai-27B-Ternary from Prism ML runs completely on my GPU (using ca. 10GB of my 12GB VRAM incl. MMProj, 9 when disabling vision) and even leaves enough VRAM to run subagents (when killing my plasmashell lol -but i tend to offload these to the CPU in favor of increasing the context of the main model). currently you have to install a costum fork of llama.cpp to run ternary models, but the needed changes will be applied upstream soon. (There is a Bonsai quant which aims to run on iPhones with below 6GB VRAM footprint - the limit of what Ios currently allows)

        If this scales linear, it would mean that the 32 GB of a smallish Blackwell would be enough to run Ternary models with around 70B parameters plus a ton of context window without breaking a sweat.

        These are strange times. I absolutely love the technology and the advances, and i fucking hate the companies pusting these technologies.

        Altman, Amodei, Musk, Nadella, Huang and all of the othe AI evangelists can go choke on a bag of dicks in my opinion. This technology never should have been this divisive, it should have just become another tool in humanities toolbox. I fear that these people have tainted the general populations outlook on this tech for a very long time.