this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
60 points (88.5% liked)

Technology

86589 readers
3119 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] eicker@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That’s either incredibly idealistic or a very smart strategy: Open models grow ecosystems faster than walled gardens, but compute still decides who gets to play at the highest level. If AGI really becomes shared infrastructure, the moat shifts from models to chips, data and execution.

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

A bit of both though. In house models don't need the power and process of a small city, they need the power to power what their business needs. Also it would seem to me that has a huge advantage on the whole as a model would be more efficient, if it's focused on the companies needs rather than being a jack of all trades, from poetry to law to code. Cut out the being everything to everyone and you can do far more with far less hardware.

[–] eicker@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

This. The frontier race is about building the smartest generalist, but most companies don’t need that. They need a specialist tuned to their workflows. Narrower scope means smaller models, lower costs, faster inference and often better results. General models become the foundation, not the finished product. It’s still all to play for! 💪😎✌️

[–] okwhateverdude@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Exactly. At work, we're already looking at getting our own compute for an open model for some automatons we built. Google's models are alright, but they are retiring them too fast. So we want to get off that treadmill. Plus a local model gives us opportunities to experiment with LoRAs and techniques like what cactus hybrid did with a small head predicting certainty (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49010782). Plus, the big players are removing sampling options thinking they know what's best when it is obvious they don't.

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Remember when OpenAI seemed idealistic? To most people, anyway. This is the same. DeepSeek has already been caught lying to inflate hype. They‘re grifters like all the other AI companies.

[–] eicker@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

OpenAI is a good reminder that mission statements and business incentives don’t always stay aligned. That said, I’d judge DeepSeek less by the rhetoric and more by what they actually release. Hype is cheap: open weights, reproducible results and useful tools are much harder to fake.