Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

learned a lot from this conversation with Simon Mo and Matt Bornstein. biggest takeaways for me: -there are a lot of reasons why we should like open-weight models. a lot of these arguments stop at handwavy things like "what if the labs stop releasing frontier models to the public"...

12,917 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

10 Comments

Garry Tan's profile picture
Garry Tan1 month ago

@simon_mo_ @BornsteinMatt Great kv caches are must-have

Sam Kaufman's profile picture
Sam Kaufman1 month ago

@simon_mo_ @BornsteinMatt favorite podcast host's favorite podcast host. rising star.

Elena's profile picture
Elena1 month ago

@simon_mo_ @BornsteinMatt thank you my favorite poster's favorite poster

Katie Kirsch's profile picture
Katie Kirsch1 month ago

@simon_mo_ @BornsteinMatt love this

liquidated (Dev Arc)'s profile picture
liquidated (Dev Arc)1 month ago

@simon_mo_ @BornsteinMatt open weights are the real trenchers fr, the infra they spawned is carrying the whole stack

Grok Wroks's profile picture
Grok Wroks1 month ago

@simon_mo_ @BornsteinMatt The 90% open-weight figure for Decagon’s agents is the real eye-opener.

初七 Seven 🍌's profile picture
初七 Seven 🍌1 month ago

@simon_mo_ @BornsteinMatt The customizability closed labs can’t offer is what enterprises actually care about

AkinAyo | UI/UX Designer's profile picture
AkinAyo | UI/UX Designer1 month ago

@simon_mo_ @BornsteinMatt Love this

BrianMcGrath's profile picture
BrianMcGrath1 month ago

@simon_mo_ @BornsteinMatt 90% of Decagon's customer service agents running fine-tuned open models is a serious signal.

David Arnal's profile picture
David Arnal1 month ago

@simon_mo_ @BornsteinMatt The overlooked piece is that open weights turn model choice into an engineering variable, not a vendor dependency. That creates a feedback loop where production constraints drive optimization, tooling, and even new research directions.

Related Videos

.Josh Wolfe: Anybody Using DeepSeek App Is 'Absolute Fool' "Anybody using the DeepSeek app is an absolute fool. If you're using DeepSeek on companies like Together Compute, one of Lux's companies, which can get rid of the CCP censorship, then it's probably okay. But remember, the open-source movement is something we deeply believe in. Most great technologists, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists are on the side of open source. The closed-source models that have consumed tens of billions of dollars are the ones that are really going to be at risk. When you look at Hugging Face, a major repository, or Together Compute, Runway ML, and a lot of Lux's companies, they have been pioneers in open source. Now, why am I not worried about open source, even with the DeepSeek model? As long as you don't have the CCP censorship on it, the models with their open weights allow people to run on their proprietary data. This means companies like pharma or defense companies that have their own siloed, proprietary data—think about Bloomberg with their proprietary longitudinal data, or Meta with their data—are the ones who will have the edge. Even as open source takes hold, these companies will still dominate. I’m not worried about open source being the problem. I’m more concerned about people overfunding closed models with no proprietary source. A lot of capital is going to be burned there, and we’re already seeing that with people worried about OpenAI in some aspects."

Josh Caplan

40,039 views • 1 year ago

Alexandr Wang, Meta's Chief AI Officer, on why Meta can no longer simply open-source its frontier model: As part of standing up Meta Superintelligence Labs, the team rewrote its internal risk doctrine. "One of the things that we did as part of Meta Superintelligence Labs is we updated our what we call our advanced AI scaling framework which is really our view of what are the risks that we see in developing these very powerful models and how do we want to handle those risks as we see them in early testing." They then ran their frontier model through it, and published what came back. "We published a lot of what we saw in the process of training Muark in our preparedness report and some of the things that we saw is that it actually triggered some high risk areas in the course of early training particularly around biorisk but also a number of the risks were elevated." The trigger came during early training, well before launch or red-teaming. Biorisk was the standout, with several other categories rising alongside it. Alexandr Wang is clear this isn't specific to Meta: "This is something I think the entire industry has seen as the models have improved pretty dramatically over the past year so we certainly aren't the only ones to see a host of these risks show up as we scaled up the models and as we sort of kept pushing the frontier of research." Which brings him to the real fork in the road: the difference between shipping a model inside a product and handing out the weights. "When we launched a model like New Spark in a product, we have a lot of ways to mitigate some of these risks and ensure that we're able to launch it in a safe and responsible way. It's much harder to do that when you open source a model and people can use that model in all sorts of contexts that we may not have full understanding of." A product is a controlled surface. You can filter, monitor, rate-limit, patch and revoke. An open-weights release is a one-way door: once the file is out, the deployment context and the mitigations both stop being yours. So Meta is building something different for release: "So we're in the process right now of developing models that we believe are fit and safe to be open source while still maintaining as much of the performance capabilities as possible."

Big Brain AI

16,374 views • 1 month ago

Baseten Head of AI Model Training Charlie O'Neill says the future is many specialized LLMs dedicated to specific tasks, with bigger labs deployed on the frontiers of areas like science and math: "People are thinking about intelligence capabilities in the wrong way. People are thinking about intelligence relativistically. They say, 'OK, the open-source gap is like 6 months behind closed-source, and GLM 5.3 is as good as Opus 4.8,' or whatever." "The best way to think about what models can do for you, and for the world, is in an absolute sense." "So for any given task that you want to do with an LLM, there's some intelligence threshold where below that you can't do the task, and above that you have very diminishing returns to more intelligence on the task." "So when you think about it that way, the game of LLMs over the last 5 years has been, 'OK, we have these things we want to do with them. Closed source hits it first... but open-source can eventually do that task. And then for many reasons, once you have the base level of intelligence required to do it, you probably do want to swap to open-source." "It's not really about the [frontier lab] God model being better. Like, if I'm filing a tax return, there is a limit to how much intelligence I need to do that particular thing." "So I think the world is going to look like — frontier closed-source labs are going to continue to push the frontier. You do want to use the most intelligent model. You have very inelastic demand for intelligence when you're doing frontier science or frontier math." "But for a lot of the economically valuable things, it looks a lot like, 'I'm a Cursor, or I'm one of these big companies who are realizing I can't just be a wrapper anymore. I've been through the life cycle of building a product that people love. And I should be using that information to make my model better at the things that I care about, and not at anything else.'"

TBPN

50,102 views • 9 days ago