← Back to context Comment by croemer 14 hours ago Yes, obviously. 24 comments croemer Reply swiftcoder 13 hours ago Even though none of us could actually afford to train it? croemer 13 hours ago Some of us might be rich, or get funding, or in the future it could be useful when training is cheaper.Open source has benefits even if you can run yourself. You can read the code for understanding/insights. Other labs could replicate/build on it. gpugreg 13 hours ago > Some of us might be richI sure wish I had a few 100M of disposable income to train a frontier model.> or in the future it could be useful when training is cheaper.I do not think that physics will allow hardware getting that much faster. But maybe we will have different, cheaper architectures by then. 5 replies → eptcyka 13 hours ago Maybe not now, but what about 10 years down the line? solarkraft 10 hours ago Yes. croes 11 hours ago Yet, I couldn’t afford a PC to run the original Crysis when it came out, now the hardware isn’t an issue anymore WithinReason 12 hours ago As an example, Grok 4 took $388M to train HPsquared 12 hours ago Compiling source code also takes computing resources, only the scale is different. It's a very close analogy: source code with training data, and compiled binaries with model weights.The weights are literally a binary blob. WithinReason 11 hours ago The weights are the modifiable representation. You modify them with gradient updates. 9 replies → croes 11 hours ago An open source Mac OS is still open source even if I can’t afford a Mac.
swiftcoder 13 hours ago Even though none of us could actually afford to train it? croemer 13 hours ago Some of us might be rich, or get funding, or in the future it could be useful when training is cheaper.Open source has benefits even if you can run yourself. You can read the code for understanding/insights. Other labs could replicate/build on it. gpugreg 13 hours ago > Some of us might be richI sure wish I had a few 100M of disposable income to train a frontier model.> or in the future it could be useful when training is cheaper.I do not think that physics will allow hardware getting that much faster. But maybe we will have different, cheaper architectures by then. 5 replies → eptcyka 13 hours ago Maybe not now, but what about 10 years down the line? solarkraft 10 hours ago Yes. croes 11 hours ago Yet, I couldn’t afford a PC to run the original Crysis when it came out, now the hardware isn’t an issue anymore
croemer 13 hours ago Some of us might be rich, or get funding, or in the future it could be useful when training is cheaper.Open source has benefits even if you can run yourself. You can read the code for understanding/insights. Other labs could replicate/build on it. gpugreg 13 hours ago > Some of us might be richI sure wish I had a few 100M of disposable income to train a frontier model.> or in the future it could be useful when training is cheaper.I do not think that physics will allow hardware getting that much faster. But maybe we will have different, cheaper architectures by then. 5 replies →
gpugreg 13 hours ago > Some of us might be richI sure wish I had a few 100M of disposable income to train a frontier model.> or in the future it could be useful when training is cheaper.I do not think that physics will allow hardware getting that much faster. But maybe we will have different, cheaper architectures by then. 5 replies →
croes 11 hours ago Yet, I couldn’t afford a PC to run the original Crysis when it came out, now the hardware isn’t an issue anymore
WithinReason 12 hours ago As an example, Grok 4 took $388M to train HPsquared 12 hours ago Compiling source code also takes computing resources, only the scale is different. It's a very close analogy: source code with training data, and compiled binaries with model weights.The weights are literally a binary blob. WithinReason 11 hours ago The weights are the modifiable representation. You modify them with gradient updates. 9 replies → croes 11 hours ago An open source Mac OS is still open source even if I can’t afford a Mac.
HPsquared 12 hours ago Compiling source code also takes computing resources, only the scale is different. It's a very close analogy: source code with training data, and compiled binaries with model weights.The weights are literally a binary blob. WithinReason 11 hours ago The weights are the modifiable representation. You modify them with gradient updates. 9 replies →
WithinReason 11 hours ago The weights are the modifiable representation. You modify them with gradient updates. 9 replies →
Even though none of us could actually afford to train it?
Some of us might be rich, or get funding, or in the future it could be useful when training is cheaper.
Open source has benefits even if you can run yourself. You can read the code for understanding/insights. Other labs could replicate/build on it.
> Some of us might be rich
I sure wish I had a few 100M of disposable income to train a frontier model.
> or in the future it could be useful when training is cheaper.
I do not think that physics will allow hardware getting that much faster. But maybe we will have different, cheaper architectures by then.
5 replies →
Maybe not now, but what about 10 years down the line?
Yes.
Yet, I couldn’t afford a PC to run the original Crysis when it came out, now the hardware isn’t an issue anymore
As an example, Grok 4 took $388M to train
Compiling source code also takes computing resources, only the scale is different. It's a very close analogy: source code with training data, and compiled binaries with model weights.
The weights are literally a binary blob.
The weights are the modifiable representation. You modify them with gradient updates.
9 replies →
An open source Mac OS is still open source even if I can’t afford a Mac.