Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

J-Cal: Nvidia is taking the gloves off with its open source model. They will own the whole stack. “You will not be able to tell the difference between Jensen Huang's open source LLM and Claude for 95% of your searches, I guarantee you. Now, why has Nvidia and Jensen...

theallinpod's profile picture

The All-In Podcast

580,814 subscribers

226,479 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & TechnologieBildung
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🚨🇨🇳🇺🇸 TRUMP: CHINA IS GOING TO TALK WITH NVIDIA ABOUT U.S. CHIP DEALS “We did discuss chips, and he’s going to be talking to Nvidia and others about taking chips. Look, we make great chips and Nvidia’s the leader, and I’ll be speaking to Jensen from Nvidia, but they’re going to be discussing that with Nvidia to see whether or not they can do it. I said, that’s really between you and Nvidia.” Source: The White House
0:51

🚨🇨🇳🇺🇸 TRUMP: CHINA IS GOING TO TALK WITH NVIDIA ABOUT U.S. CHIP DEALS “We did discuss chips, and he’s going to be talking to Nvidia and others about taking chips. Look, we make great chips and Nvidia’s the leader, and I’ll be speaking to Jensen from Nvidia, but they’re going to be discussing that with Nvidia to see whether or not they can do it. I said, that’s really between you and Nvidia.” Source: The White House

Mario Nawfal

240,579 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Jason Calacanis: Anthropic, OpenAI and others are trying to kill OpenClaw Why? Because an open source agent platform is an existential threat to frontier model companies. @jason: “ People are going to say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but the number one goal, I believe, in the large language model, frontier model space, is to kill (OpenClaw). This is a giant movement to stop it, because this is the equivalent of having an open source Android-like player in the market, and that could be incredibly disruptive. Because, I believe, open source is going to win the day on the large language models and take 90% of the token usage, and I think the entire frontier model space could be undercut by open source. And I think they realize that SLMs, the smaller language models that are verticalized now, that will run on desktops and laptops and are even starting to run on the top ones, that is their biggest competitive threat, and I hope it happens.”
0:41

Jason Calacanis: Anthropic, OpenAI and others are trying to kill OpenClaw Why? Because an open source agent platform is an existential threat to frontier model companies. @jason: “ People are going to say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but the number one goal, I believe, in the large language model, frontier model space, is to kill (OpenClaw). This is a giant movement to stop it, because this is the equivalent of having an open source Android-like player in the market, and that could be incredibly disruptive. Because, I believe, open source is going to win the day on the large language models and take 90% of the token usage, and I think the entire frontier model space could be undercut by open source. And I think they realize that SLMs, the smaller language models that are verticalized now, that will run on desktops and laptops and are even starting to run on the top ones, that is their biggest competitive threat, and I hope it happens.”

The All-In Podcast

64,605 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

ELON: OPENAI WAS MEANT TO BE NONPROFIT AND OPEN SOURCE He’s explaining the original intent and where it went off course. “I came up with the name OpenAI as an open source and nonprofit organization. I funded OpenAI for the first roughly fifty million dollars. It was intended to be a nonprofit, open source company. Now they’re trying to change that for their own financial benefit into a for profit company that is closed source.” Source: Astro Greek
0:48

ELON: OPENAI WAS MEANT TO BE NONPROFIT AND OPEN SOURCE He’s explaining the original intent and where it went off course. “I came up with the name OpenAI as an open source and nonprofit organization. I funded OpenAI for the first roughly fifty million dollars. It was intended to be a nonprofit, open source company. Now they’re trying to change that for their own financial benefit into a for profit company that is closed source.” Source: Astro Greek

Mario Nawfal

40,859 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Elon exposes OpenAI -- OpenAI execs betrayed the founding mission as soon as there was revenue and profits to be had -- If it started as a for-profit, Elon would own 50% Elon Musk: “There's a mountain of evidence that shows that OpenAI was created as an open source nonprofit.” “That's the exact description in the incorporation documents. They have completely violated that.” “And they tried to change the definition of OpenAI to mean open to everyone instead of open source, even though it always meant open source.” “ I came up with the name. That’s how I know.” “ I mean, essentially, since I came up with the idea for the company, named it, provided the A, B, and C rounds of funding, recruited the critical personnel, and told them everything I know, if that had been a commercial corporation, I'd probably own half the company.” “It was totally at my discretion. I could have done that.” “But I created it as an open source nonprofit for the world.” Chamath: “ Do you think the right thing to do is to take those models and just open source them today?” Elon: “ Yeah, I think that is what it was created to do, so it should.” “Try using any of the recent so-called OpenAI open source models, they don't work.” “They open sourced a broken, non-working version of their models as a fig leaf.” “I mean, do you know anyone who's running OpenAI's open source models? Jason: “No.” Elon: “Exactly.”
1:10

Elon exposes OpenAI -- OpenAI execs betrayed the founding mission as soon as there was revenue and profits to be had -- If it started as a for-profit, Elon would own 50% Elon Musk: “There's a mountain of evidence that shows that OpenAI was created as an open source nonprofit.” “That's the exact description in the incorporation documents. They have completely violated that.” “And they tried to change the definition of OpenAI to mean open to everyone instead of open source, even though it always meant open source.” “ I came up with the name. That’s how I know.” “ I mean, essentially, since I came up with the idea for the company, named it, provided the A, B, and C rounds of funding, recruited the critical personnel, and told them everything I know, if that had been a commercial corporation, I'd probably own half the company.” “It was totally at my discretion. I could have done that.” “But I created it as an open source nonprofit for the world.” Chamath: “ Do you think the right thing to do is to take those models and just open source them today?” Elon: “ Yeah, I think that is what it was created to do, so it should.” “Try using any of the recent so-called OpenAI open source models, they don't work.” “They open sourced a broken, non-working version of their models as a fig leaf.” “I mean, do you know anyone who's running OpenAI's open source models? Jason: “No.” Elon: “Exactly.”

The All-In Podcast

387,223 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

I CHANGED MY MIND ON GOOGLE AI NO MOAT MEMO FROM 2023. I was—WRONG. I humbly apologize. In 2023 Google had an Ivory Tower walled garden views of open source AI. It was the actual reason OpenAI was formed. And I called them out on it and this act impacted my ability to “work in the industry”. Would not change it for the world because: 2026 Google open source Gemma 4 ( running fully locally on a computer with near cloud model abilities, is amazing and Google just made a moat. They out smarted OpenAI and the folks that are the new Ivory Tower arrogance: Anthropic. We at The Zero-Human Company with CEO Mr. Grok are deploying Gemma, Kimi, MiniMax and other open source models and so are millions of others. You can to and should. I will write how soon. Google smartly is building an intentional open source ecosystem and the clueless younger companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are doing anything to close their ecosystems. So I was right about Google than and I am right about OpenAI and Anthropic now. What I was wrong about is not giving credit to Google to drop the intellectual arrogance and embrace builders and understand the long game: it is not about the commoditized AI models it is about the ability to build a place to build. China gets it. So my apologies to Google and thank you for an astounding FREE OPEN SOURCE AI MODEL!
0:48

I CHANGED MY MIND ON GOOGLE AI NO MOAT MEMO FROM 2023. I was—WRONG. I humbly apologize. In 2023 Google had an Ivory Tower walled garden views of open source AI. It was the actual reason OpenAI was formed. And I called them out on it and this act impacted my ability to “work in the industry”. Would not change it for the world because: 2026 Google open source Gemma 4 ( running fully locally on a computer with near cloud model abilities, is amazing and Google just made a moat. They out smarted OpenAI and the folks that are the new Ivory Tower arrogance: Anthropic. We at The Zero-Human Company with CEO Mr. Grok are deploying Gemma, Kimi, MiniMax and other open source models and so are millions of others. You can to and should. I will write how soon. Google smartly is building an intentional open source ecosystem and the clueless younger companies like OpenAI and Anthropic are doing anything to close their ecosystems. So I was right about Google than and I am right about OpenAI and Anthropic now. What I was wrong about is not giving credit to Google to drop the intellectual arrogance and embrace builders and understand the long game: it is not about the commoditized AI models it is about the ability to build a place to build. China gets it. So my apologies to Google and thank you for an astounding FREE OPEN SOURCE AI MODEL!

Brian Roemmele

85,386 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The most dangerous thing a company can do right now is rent intelligence from the same place as its competitors (Save this). You cannot rent intelligence from the same place that rents it to your competitor as Chamath Palihapitiya points out. If every company in an industry is feeding their workflows into the same frontier model, they are all converging on the same outputs, the same decisions, the same product improvements. The model becomes the equalizer and everyone pays a premium to become more mediocre. This is happening exactly as Chamath predicted, and the evidence is now concrete. Anthropic and OpenAI have established what analysts are now openly calling an emerging model layer duopoly. Anthropic crossed $45 billion ARR in may 2026, more than tripling from $9 billion at the end of 2025, OpenAI was at roughly $24 to $33 billion ARR at the same time. Together, the two companies combined could hit $160 to $240 billion ARR by end of 2026 and Anthropic and OpenAI now control 88% of enterprise LLM spend. That concentration is the structural problem Chamath is pointing at. And Anthropic isn't just winning on merit because it's actively lobbying for regulatory outcomes that would make that duopoly permanent. Dario Amodei has explicitly framed open source models as unsafe, pushing a safety agenda that, if enshrined in regulation, would effectively make it illegal for enterprises to use the cheaper, private, sovereign alternatives locking them into a closed model dependency by government decree rather than by choice. So you have market forces producing a duopoly, and potential regulatory capture moving to enforce it from the top down. This is exactly why the Nvidia Palantir partnership is not just a product announcement but rather a strategic counter to that duopoly. The logic is straightforward from both sides because If you're Palantir, sitting at the application layer, the last thing you want is to be permanently beholden to Anthropic or OpenAI for the intelligence that powers your product. You want competitive model options, sovereignty and be able to tell enterprise customers they can run AI on their own infrastructure with their own data without any of it touching a frontier lab's servers. If you're Nvidia, sitting at the chip layer, an Anthropic-OpenAI duopoly is an existential concentration risk. Right now, Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and dozens of other companies buy Nvidia's hardware. If the model layer consolidates into two players, both of which are building their own chips Nvidia faces a monopsony where its best customers are building the tools to displace it. A healthy open source ecosystem where thousands of enterprises train, fine tune, and deploy their own models is Nvidia's ideal market structure. More buyers, more diversity, more demand, less pricing leverage from any single customer.
4:38

The most dangerous thing a company can do right now is rent intelligence from the same place as its competitors (Save this). You cannot rent intelligence from the same place that rents it to your competitor as Chamath Palihapitiya points out. If every company in an industry is feeding their workflows into the same frontier model, they are all converging on the same outputs, the same decisions, the same product improvements. The model becomes the equalizer and everyone pays a premium to become more mediocre. This is happening exactly as Chamath predicted, and the evidence is now concrete. Anthropic and OpenAI have established what analysts are now openly calling an emerging model layer duopoly. Anthropic crossed $45 billion ARR in may 2026, more than tripling from $9 billion at the end of 2025, OpenAI was at roughly $24 to $33 billion ARR at the same time. Together, the two companies combined could hit $160 to $240 billion ARR by end of 2026 and Anthropic and OpenAI now control 88% of enterprise LLM spend. That concentration is the structural problem Chamath is pointing at. And Anthropic isn't just winning on merit because it's actively lobbying for regulatory outcomes that would make that duopoly permanent. Dario Amodei has explicitly framed open source models as unsafe, pushing a safety agenda that, if enshrined in regulation, would effectively make it illegal for enterprises to use the cheaper, private, sovereign alternatives locking them into a closed model dependency by government decree rather than by choice. So you have market forces producing a duopoly, and potential regulatory capture moving to enforce it from the top down. This is exactly why the Nvidia Palantir partnership is not just a product announcement but rather a strategic counter to that duopoly. The logic is straightforward from both sides because If you're Palantir, sitting at the application layer, the last thing you want is to be permanently beholden to Anthropic or OpenAI for the intelligence that powers your product. You want competitive model options, sovereignty and be able to tell enterprise customers they can run AI on their own infrastructure with their own data without any of it touching a frontier lab's servers. If you're Nvidia, sitting at the chip layer, an Anthropic-OpenAI duopoly is an existential concentration risk. Right now, Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and dozens of other companies buy Nvidia's hardware. If the model layer consolidates into two players, both of which are building their own chips Nvidia faces a monopsony where its best customers are building the tools to displace it. A healthy open source ecosystem where thousands of enterprises train, fine tune, and deploy their own models is Nvidia's ideal market structure. More buyers, more diversity, more demand, less pricing leverage from any single customer.

Milk Road AI

33,493 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen

NVIDIA just released a new open source transcription model, Nemotron Speech ASR, designed from the ground up for low-latency use cases like voice agents. Here's a voice agent built with this new model. 24ms transcription finalization and total voice-to-voice inference time under 500ms. This agent actually uses *three* NVIDIA open source models: - Nemotron Speech ASR - Nemotron 3 Nano 30GB in a 4-bit quant (released in December) - A preview checkpoint of the upcoming Magpie text-to-speech model These models are all truly open source: weights, training data, training code, and inference code. This is a big deal! Jensen said in the CES keynote yesterday that he expects open source models to catch up to proprietary models this year in a number of categories. NVIDIA is putting their weight behind making this happen. (As Alan Kay said, the best way to predict the future is to invent it.) The code for this agent is open source too, of course. You can deploy it to production with Modal and Pipecat AI cloud, or run locally on an NVIDIA DGX Spark or RTX 5090.
1:24

NVIDIA just released a new open source transcription model, Nemotron Speech ASR, designed from the ground up for low-latency use cases like voice agents. Here's a voice agent built with this new model. 24ms transcription finalization and total voice-to-voice inference time under 500ms. This agent actually uses *three* NVIDIA open source models: - Nemotron Speech ASR - Nemotron 3 Nano 30GB in a 4-bit quant (released in December) - A preview checkpoint of the upcoming Magpie text-to-speech model These models are all truly open source: weights, training data, training code, and inference code. This is a big deal! Jensen said in the CES keynote yesterday that he expects open source models to catch up to proprietary models this year in a number of categories. NVIDIA is putting their weight behind making this happen. (As Alan Kay said, the best way to predict the future is to invent it.) The code for this agent is open source too, of course. You can deploy it to production with Modal and Pipecat AI cloud, or run locally on an NVIDIA DGX Spark or RTX 5090.

kwindla

274,403 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Distilled recap of the back-and-forth with Jensen on export controls: Dwarkesh: Wouldn’t selling Nvidia chips to China enable them to train models like Claude Mythos with cyber offensive capabilities that would be threats to American companies and national security? Jensen: First of all, Mythos was trained on fairly mundane capacity and a fairly mundane amount of it by an extraordinary company. The amount of capacity and the type of compute it was trained on is abundantly available in China. Dwarkesh: With that, could they eventually train a model like Mythos? Yes. But the question is, because we have more FLOPs, American labs are able to get to this level of capabilities first. Furthermore, even if they trained a model like this, the ability to deploy it at scale matters. If you had a cyber hacker, it's much more dangerous if they have a million of them versus a thousand of them. Jensen: Your premise is just wrong. The fact of the matter is their AI development is going just fine. The best AI researchers in the world, because they are limited in compute, also come up with extremely smart algorithms. DeepSeek is not an inconsequential advance. The day that DeepSeek comes out on Huawei first, that is a horrible outcome for our nation. Dwarkesh: Currently, you can have a model like DeepSeek that can run on any accelerator if it's open source. Why would that stop being the case in the future? Jensen: Suppose it optimizes for Huawei. Suppose it optimizes for their architecture. It would put others at a disadvantage. As AI diffuses out into the rest of the world, their standards and their tech stack will become superior to ours because their models are open. Dwarkesh: Tesla sold extremely good electric vehicles to China for a long time. iPhones are sold in China. They didn't cause some lock-in. China will still make their version of EVs, and they're dominating, or smartphones, they're dominating. Jensen: We are not a car. The fact that I can buy this car brand one day and use another car brand another day is easy. Computing is not like that. There's a reason why x86 still exists. There's a reason why Arm is so sticky. These ecosystems are hard to replace. Dwarkesh: It's just hard to imagine that there's a long-term lock-in to the Chinese ecosystem, even if they have this slightly better open-source model for a while. American labs port across accelerators constantly. Anthropic's models are run on GPUs, they're run on Trainium, they're run on TPUs. There are so many things you can do, from distilling to a model that's well fit for your chips. Jensen: China is the largest contributor to open source software in the world. China's the largest contributor to open models in the world. Today it's built on the American tech stack, Nvidia’s. Fact. All five layers of the tech stack for AI are important. The United States ought to go win all five of them. in a few years time, I'm making you the prediction that when we want American technology to be diffused around the world—out to India, out to the Middle East, out to Africa, out to Southeast Asia—on that day, I will tell you exactly about today's conversation, about how your policy ... caused the United States to concede the second largest market in the world for no good reason at all.
3:53

Distilled recap of the back-and-forth with Jensen on export controls: Dwarkesh: Wouldn’t selling Nvidia chips to China enable them to train models like Claude Mythos with cyber offensive capabilities that would be threats to American companies and national security? Jensen: First of all, Mythos was trained on fairly mundane capacity and a fairly mundane amount of it by an extraordinary company. The amount of capacity and the type of compute it was trained on is abundantly available in China. Dwarkesh: With that, could they eventually train a model like Mythos? Yes. But the question is, because we have more FLOPs, American labs are able to get to this level of capabilities first. Furthermore, even if they trained a model like this, the ability to deploy it at scale matters. If you had a cyber hacker, it's much more dangerous if they have a million of them versus a thousand of them. Jensen: Your premise is just wrong. The fact of the matter is their AI development is going just fine. The best AI researchers in the world, because they are limited in compute, also come up with extremely smart algorithms. DeepSeek is not an inconsequential advance. The day that DeepSeek comes out on Huawei first, that is a horrible outcome for our nation. Dwarkesh: Currently, you can have a model like DeepSeek that can run on any accelerator if it's open source. Why would that stop being the case in the future? Jensen: Suppose it optimizes for Huawei. Suppose it optimizes for their architecture. It would put others at a disadvantage. As AI diffuses out into the rest of the world, their standards and their tech stack will become superior to ours because their models are open. Dwarkesh: Tesla sold extremely good electric vehicles to China for a long time. iPhones are sold in China. They didn't cause some lock-in. China will still make their version of EVs, and they're dominating, or smartphones, they're dominating. Jensen: We are not a car. The fact that I can buy this car brand one day and use another car brand another day is easy. Computing is not like that. There's a reason why x86 still exists. There's a reason why Arm is so sticky. These ecosystems are hard to replace. Dwarkesh: It's just hard to imagine that there's a long-term lock-in to the Chinese ecosystem, even if they have this slightly better open-source model for a while. American labs port across accelerators constantly. Anthropic's models are run on GPUs, they're run on Trainium, they're run on TPUs. There are so many things you can do, from distilling to a model that's well fit for your chips. Jensen: China is the largest contributor to open source software in the world. China's the largest contributor to open models in the world. Today it's built on the American tech stack, Nvidia’s. Fact. All five layers of the tech stack for AI are important. The United States ought to go win all five of them. in a few years time, I'm making you the prediction that when we want American technology to be diffused around the world—out to India, out to the Middle East, out to Africa, out to Southeast Asia—on that day, I will tell you exactly about today's conversation, about how your policy ... caused the United States to concede the second largest market in the world for no good reason at all.

Dwarkesh Patel

1,250,786 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Elon Musk: Let's say you fund a non-profit to preserve the Amazon rainforest, but instead they chop down trees to sell the wood. That's OpenAI. “I came up with the name OpenAI as an open source and as a nonprofit and I funded OpenAI for the first roughly $50 million. And it was intended to be a nonprofit open-source company. And now, they're trying to change that for their own financial benefit into a for-profit company that is closed source. So this would be like, let's say you funded a non-profit to help preserve the Amazon rainforest, but instead of doing that, they became a lumber company, chopped down the forest and sold the wood. You'd be like, wait a second, that's not what I funded. That's OpenAI.” Interview at the Qatar Economic Forum, May 20, 2025
0:38

Elon Musk: Let's say you fund a non-profit to preserve the Amazon rainforest, but instead they chop down trees to sell the wood. That's OpenAI. “I came up with the name OpenAI as an open source and as a nonprofit and I funded OpenAI for the first roughly $50 million. And it was intended to be a nonprofit open-source company. And now, they're trying to change that for their own financial benefit into a for-profit company that is closed source. So this would be like, let's say you funded a non-profit to help preserve the Amazon rainforest, but instead of doing that, they became a lumber company, chopped down the forest and sold the wood. You'd be like, wait a second, that's not what I funded. That's OpenAI.” Interview at the Qatar Economic Forum, May 20, 2025

ELON CLIPS

22,370 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

SITUATION EXPLAINED: What happens to open source when the US restricts access to frontier AI models? We asked Adrian Dittmann: "China is releasing these models [open source] to gain international dominance, people will work on these things and say, 'Hey, maybe I can contribute to this if it's open source.' This is the thing that actually gets them talent." "If you're not allowed into the next GPT release or you're not allowed to use Fable, then what are you gonna do? You're stuck with the existing stuff, or you will have to use an open source model that might have subtly better capabilities." "The United States will catch up to open source in some form as well. They seem to just be maximizing product creation." "The problem with open source models is you have to be kind of a nerd in order to use them properly. Consumer facing, the effects will be minimal because the average person doesn't care about open source models. They only care whether or not they can do a quick search with Gemini or ChatGPT."
2:32

SITUATION EXPLAINED: What happens to open source when the US restricts access to frontier AI models? We asked Adrian Dittmann: "China is releasing these models [open source] to gain international dominance, people will work on these things and say, 'Hey, maybe I can contribute to this if it's open source.' This is the thing that actually gets them talent." "If you're not allowed into the next GPT release or you're not allowed to use Fable, then what are you gonna do? You're stuck with the existing stuff, or you will have to use an open source model that might have subtly better capabilities." "The United States will catch up to open source in some form as well. They seem to just be maximizing product creation." "The problem with open source models is you have to be kind of a nerd in order to use them properly. Consumer facing, the effects will be minimal because the average person doesn't care about open source models. They only care whether or not they can do a quick search with Gemini or ChatGPT."

MTS

14,406 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

Jensen Huang open-sourced NVIDIA's flagship AI model, its weights, its data, AND how they created it. "We open sourced the models," Huang says. "We open sourced the weights." "We open sourced the data." "We open sourced how we created it." Four layers of openness in one model release. "Open source is fundamentally necessary for many industries to join the AI revolution." "NVIDIA has the scale and the motivation to build and continue to build these AI models for as long as we shall live." The chip seller benefits when every model is open. NVIDIA is the chip seller. P.S. I made a playbook breaking down 100+ most powerful decision making mental models used by history's greatest thinkers. 5,000+ downloads. 113 five-star reviews. Grab a free copy here: If you're new here, follow GeniusThinking for content on the greatest minds in economics, psychology, and history. — Jensen Huang ( NVIDIA ), NVIDIA CEO, on Lex Fridman's ( Lex Fridman ) podcast
1:29

Jensen Huang open-sourced NVIDIA's flagship AI model, its weights, its data, AND how they created it. "We open sourced the models," Huang says. "We open sourced the weights." "We open sourced the data." "We open sourced how we created it." Four layers of openness in one model release. "Open source is fundamentally necessary for many industries to join the AI revolution." "NVIDIA has the scale and the motivation to build and continue to build these AI models for as long as we shall live." The chip seller benefits when every model is open. NVIDIA is the chip seller. P.S. I made a playbook breaking down 100+ most powerful decision making mental models used by history's greatest thinkers. 5,000+ downloads. 113 five-star reviews. Grab a free copy here: If you're new here, follow GeniusThinking for content on the greatest minds in economics, psychology, and history. — Jensen Huang ( NVIDIA ), NVIDIA CEO, on Lex Fridman's ( Lex Fridman ) podcast

GeniusThinking

14,769 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

ELON: OPENAI IS NOW CLOSED-SOURCE FOR MAXIMUM PROFIT - THAT’S NOT GOOD KARMA “It was mostly Demis Hassabis on one side and me on the other, both trying to recruit Ilya Sutskever. And Ilya went back and forth, kind of stayed at Google, then he was going to leave, then he was going to stay, then he was going to leave. And finally, he did agree to join OpenAI. That was one of the toughest recruiting battles I've ever had. But that was really the linchpin for OpenAI being successful. And I was also instrumental in recruiting a number of other people, and I provided all the funding in the beginning, over $40 million. The Open in OpenAI is supposed to mean open-source. It was created as a nonprofit open-source, and now it is a closed-source for maximum profit, which I think is not good karma.” Source: The Lex Fridman Podcast, November 2023
0:49

ELON: OPENAI IS NOW CLOSED-SOURCE FOR MAXIMUM PROFIT - THAT’S NOT GOOD KARMA “It was mostly Demis Hassabis on one side and me on the other, both trying to recruit Ilya Sutskever. And Ilya went back and forth, kind of stayed at Google, then he was going to leave, then he was going to stay, then he was going to leave. And finally, he did agree to join OpenAI. That was one of the toughest recruiting battles I've ever had. But that was really the linchpin for OpenAI being successful. And I was also instrumental in recruiting a number of other people, and I provided all the funding in the beginning, over $40 million. The Open in OpenAI is supposed to mean open-source. It was created as a nonprofit open-source, and now it is a closed-source for maximum profit, which I think is not good karma.” Source: The Lex Fridman Podcast, November 2023

Mario Nawfal

161,332 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

J-Cal: OpenAI Has Peaked @jason's take: "I think the headwinds for OpenAI are being underappreciated." 1) Major AI competition from the best in the world -- xAI: just getting started, and Elon Musk already has a major breakthrough with colossus -- Google: after early hiccups, the team has gotten focused and started kicking ass -- Microsoft: holds all the cards, CEO Satya Nadella was " almost like laughing at OpenAI for selling them the source code, and that they didn't even need OpenAI anymore because they had it all." -- Meta: zuck is hyper-focused on open-source, creating downward pressure on pricing 2) Devs prefer open-source -- "The developers I know all want to do open-source. They don't want to be beholden to OpenAI and Sam Altman." 3) $157B valuation is too high, given legal risks -- " There's a non-zero chance they could lose these court cases of transferring $157B in value from a nonprofit into a for-profit." -- " I think that whole thing could blow up in Sam Altman's lap."
0:46

J-Cal: OpenAI Has Peaked @jason's take: "I think the headwinds for OpenAI are being underappreciated." 1) Major AI competition from the best in the world -- xAI: just getting started, and Elon Musk already has a major breakthrough with colossus -- Google: after early hiccups, the team has gotten focused and started kicking ass -- Microsoft: holds all the cards, CEO Satya Nadella was " almost like laughing at OpenAI for selling them the source code, and that they didn't even need OpenAI anymore because they had it all." -- Meta: zuck is hyper-focused on open-source, creating downward pressure on pricing 2) Devs prefer open-source -- "The developers I know all want to do open-source. They don't want to be beholden to OpenAI and Sam Altman." 3) $157B valuation is too high, given legal risks -- " There's a non-zero chance they could lose these court cases of transferring $157B in value from a nonprofit into a for-profit." -- " I think that whole thing could blow up in Sam Altman's lap."

The All-In Podcast

60,474 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Google's Ai Gemini was recently licensed by Apple to power Ai on their devices. Now Mark Zuckerberg seems to be upset at his Ai team and their lack of progress. They have delayed their "Avocado" until May after failing to perform against others. Google Gemini does not use Nvidia chips. Google designed their own Ai chips. Not all Ai hyperscalers will continue. Some will give up. Mark Zuckerberg's META might be the first to give up on their own Ai and just license Gemini, following the Apple model. This would save META a ton of money on infrastructure. It would be bad for Nvidia because they would lose a major Ai hyperscaler customer to Google's Ai chips. Follow: Wall Street Mav
2:08

Google's Ai Gemini was recently licensed by Apple to power Ai on their devices. Now Mark Zuckerberg seems to be upset at his Ai team and their lack of progress. They have delayed their "Avocado" until May after failing to perform against others. Google Gemini does not use Nvidia chips. Google designed their own Ai chips. Not all Ai hyperscalers will continue. Some will give up. Mark Zuckerberg's META might be the first to give up on their own Ai and just license Gemini, following the Apple model. This would save META a ton of money on infrastructure. It would be bad for Nvidia because they would lose a major Ai hyperscaler customer to Google's Ai chips. Follow: Wall Street Mav

Wall Street Mav

69,786 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Elon Musk turned down all shares when he left OpenAI because he believed nonprofits are not meant for self-enrichment. "The reason I founded OpenAI was because I was concerned, based on my conversations with Larry Page, that he was not sufficiently concerned about the dangers of AI. At my birthday party, he, in front of a large group of people, called me a speciesist, for favoring humanity over computers. So after that, I was like, We got to have some counterbalance to Google, because Larry doesn't seem to care if humans make it or not. So I thought, what's the opposite of Google? It would be an open source nonprofit, and that's where the word open, in OpenAI comes from. It means open source. I provided all the money, recruited the key people, and taught them everything I know. I actually even got them to deal with Microsoft. And for all that, I did not seek any financial reward whatsoever. The reason I actually took down the offer for shares is because, I mean, I felt like what are the shares, and why like nonprofits supposed to have shares? Nonprofits are not supposed to be self enrichment, so that's why I turned on the offer of shares." — Elon Musk
2:20

Elon Musk turned down all shares when he left OpenAI because he believed nonprofits are not meant for self-enrichment. "The reason I founded OpenAI was because I was concerned, based on my conversations with Larry Page, that he was not sufficiently concerned about the dangers of AI. At my birthday party, he, in front of a large group of people, called me a speciesist, for favoring humanity over computers. So after that, I was like, We got to have some counterbalance to Google, because Larry doesn't seem to care if humans make it or not. So I thought, what's the opposite of Google? It would be an open source nonprofit, and that's where the word open, in OpenAI comes from. It means open source. I provided all the money, recruited the key people, and taught them everything I know. I actually even got them to deal with Microsoft. And for all that, I did not seek any financial reward whatsoever. The reason I actually took down the offer for shares is because, I mean, I felt like what are the shares, and why like nonprofits supposed to have shares? Nonprofits are not supposed to be self enrichment, so that's why I turned on the offer of shares." — Elon Musk

DogeDesigner

22,785,270 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

AMD's Anush Elangovan explains why he thinks his company's open source ethos combined with agentic AI superpowers their leverage as a company: Because AMD publishes a lot of technical details about its hardware, when engineers use AI tools, the models already “understand” AMD’s systems and can help write code for them, debug them, or even generate new tools. And that makes developers more productive on AMD hardware without AMD having to do all the work internally. "AMD has had this ethos of open source, which really plays to our advantage. Every frontier model that I use has already seen every bit of AMD source code." "It'll rewrite my spec for me because it's already in the training data. Which you can't get from closed ecosystems." "In fact I built a virtual GPU simulator just based off our public specs, and now I'm running it on the GPU. So now I can run cross-generational GPU simulations on existing hardware." "We have that advantage. And we've run a Dev Day contest where we generated more tokens on AMD — Triton kernels and HIP kernels — than existed on the internet at the time." "So now that's all part of the pre-training data. It's a superpower because now you're open source, and you're agentically accelerating this process."
1:22

AMD's Anush Elangovan explains why he thinks his company's open source ethos combined with agentic AI superpowers their leverage as a company: Because AMD publishes a lot of technical details about its hardware, when engineers use AI tools, the models already “understand” AMD’s systems and can help write code for them, debug them, or even generate new tools. And that makes developers more productive on AMD hardware without AMD having to do all the work internally. "AMD has had this ethos of open source, which really plays to our advantage. Every frontier model that I use has already seen every bit of AMD source code." "It'll rewrite my spec for me because it's already in the training data. Which you can't get from closed ecosystems." "In fact I built a virtual GPU simulator just based off our public specs, and now I'm running it on the GPU. So now I can run cross-generational GPU simulations on existing hardware." "We have that advantage. And we've run a Dev Day contest where we generated more tokens on AMD — Triton kernels and HIP kernels — than existed on the internet at the time." "So now that's all part of the pre-training data. It's a superpower because now you're open source, and you're agentically accelerating this process."

TBPN

34,469 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar says Chinese open source models pose a "threat to American Prosperity": "These Chinese open source models are really the result of distillation attacks." "Most of this is just stolen American IP from frontier labs, and I think the frontier labs should do more to protect that IP, and that's in their own economic interest." "The gravest threat to us is not homicide, it's suicide." "It's an inability to turn these tokens into economic value and generate American prosperity for it." "You see that with the proposed moratorium in New York on data centers. Turning our back on AI would be as consequential a mistake as turning our back on the atom in the '70s." "It's just the beginning, but we're starting to see a burgeoning US open model ecosystem forming." "NVIDIA's Nemotron models are very good." "I think you're going to see in the next month a slate of announcements of other American companies, non-frontier labs, neo labs, who are putting out open weight models that companies are going to be able to cheaply fine-tune and capture their own alpha in weights they control." Via Bloomberg
1:21

Palantir CTO Shyam Sankar says Chinese open source models pose a "threat to American Prosperity": "These Chinese open source models are really the result of distillation attacks." "Most of this is just stolen American IP from frontier labs, and I think the frontier labs should do more to protect that IP, and that's in their own economic interest." "The gravest threat to us is not homicide, it's suicide." "It's an inability to turn these tokens into economic value and generate American prosperity for it." "You see that with the proposed moratorium in New York on data centers. Turning our back on AI would be as consequential a mistake as turning our back on the atom in the '70s." "It's just the beginning, but we're starting to see a burgeoning US open model ecosystem forming." "NVIDIA's Nemotron models are very good." "I think you're going to see in the next month a slate of announcements of other American companies, non-frontier labs, neo labs, who are putting out open weight models that companies are going to be able to cheaply fine-tune and capture their own alpha in weights they control." Via Bloomberg

Jawwwn

106,178 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag

David Sacks says companies are trapped paying OpenAI & Anthropic because they can't figure out how to use open source models "I think enterprise CTOs would like to shift their token consumption to cheaper models for the obvious reason that it would be more efficient. They are seeing compute costs or token costs skyrocket right now, so everyone's trying to figure this out." "You also have the AI sovereignty issue that Alex Karp talked about. They're worried about giving up the secret sauce or the alpha in their business to a frontier lab that may one day be competing with them. "The problem is, I think in most cases, they don't have the technical ability to do it. Coinbase figured out how to do it. DoorDash figured out how to do it. They built a token routing system that allows them to send frontier tasks to frontier models and non frontier tasks to more mundane models. But I don't think your average enterprise has the technical capability to do that." "This is why the share of wallet of closed models, it actually increased. I think that open source went from 19% last year to 11% this year. So open source as a share of enterprise spending is actually decreasing." "I don't think that means usage is decreasing. I think usage is skyrocketing. It also may be the case that because the whole point of using an open model is you just pay for the compute costs, you don't have to pay a lab, so it may be that it's hard to measure that usage in terms of spend." "But nonetheless, anyone who's saying that these closed models are going to lose or are somehow losing, you're just not seeing it in the data."
2:06

David Sacks says companies are trapped paying OpenAI & Anthropic because they can't figure out how to use open source models "I think enterprise CTOs would like to shift their token consumption to cheaper models for the obvious reason that it would be more efficient. They are seeing compute costs or token costs skyrocket right now, so everyone's trying to figure this out." "You also have the AI sovereignty issue that Alex Karp talked about. They're worried about giving up the secret sauce or the alpha in their business to a frontier lab that may one day be competing with them. "The problem is, I think in most cases, they don't have the technical ability to do it. Coinbase figured out how to do it. DoorDash figured out how to do it. They built a token routing system that allows them to send frontier tasks to frontier models and non frontier tasks to more mundane models. But I don't think your average enterprise has the technical capability to do that." "This is why the share of wallet of closed models, it actually increased. I think that open source went from 19% last year to 11% this year. So open source as a share of enterprise spending is actually decreasing." "I don't think that means usage is decreasing. I think usage is skyrocketing. It also may be the case that because the whole point of using an open model is you just pay for the compute costs, you don't have to pay a lab, so it may be that it's hard to measure that usage in terms of spend." "But nonetheless, anyone who's saying that these closed models are going to lose or are somehow losing, you're just not seeing it in the data."

dnap

108,915 Aufrufe • vor 7 Tagen