← Back to context

Comment by Havoc

10 hours ago

>The nice thing is that current local modes don't go away.

Given pace of advance I'm not convinced this is a winning strategy. The models of today (open or not) are way smarter than those of a year ago.

...so we really do need open models to keep pace, not just be statically competitive at a given point in time

Even if Deepseek v4.1 is the last open source LLM I have access to, I would be perfectly fine with that. My secret is that I have this relatively unknown technique for solving problems where I use this quantum engine that developed from just atoms over 4.54 billion years into the most sophisticated machine in the known universe. It's a frontier model that every human has access too, actually.

So when I really want to solve a problem, I just think on it. And when I need something to iterate through the things I thought of quickly, I use deepseek.

  • > Even if Deepseek v4.1 is the last open source LLM I have access to, I would be perfectly fine with that.

    Your quantum engine aside, current open-source LLMs will not age well. They have a knowledge cutoff. If you ask them five years from now about something that didn't exist when they were trained, chances are they won't be able to provide a useful answer. They may still be useful for many applications, but their value will eventually deteriorate. Having continuous access to up-to-date open-weight LLMs is therefore about much more than simply having access to "better" models.

  • Yep, fully satisfied with DS 4.1 Flash or GLM 5.3 Flash. I prefer using one chat at a time, actually thinking through things with it, as opposed to the YOLO run all night multi-agent thing. I mean I’m still okay with subagents if my main thread needs to explore a few options and then report back, but all on the same idea.

    • You might enjoy Cecli, the successor to Aider. It's made for the kind of workflow you are describing (full hands off yolo and recursive sub-agents also an option, but not the default)

      cecli.dev

  • The thing here for me is not that I’m unable to solve problems with my brain, it’s that I value the automation in labor provided by coding agents. I do not want future advancements to be locked behind proprietary doors.

    • I agree with that but the cat is out of the bag now. Unless you believe in exponential improvement (which I don’t), the open models might be at a resource disadvantage, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t catch up or surpass the closed ones. Throwing money at a problem doesn’t guarantee success.

      I mainly just want to point out the value of human ingenuity coupled with a model like DS4.1 is technically enough to get most people to where they want to go, and that includes smarter open models.

    • Then you probably don't want to be funding the companies that want and intend for it to be locked behind proprietary doors.

  • You say that now, but you don't know what the future models will be capable of. If models get ridiculously good, you might not be perfectly fine with that.

  • How do you run DS 4.1 Flash if your computer isnt powerful and everything?

    • It can run on one strix halo machine, which is what I have. For everything else, there’s a vibrant community brute forcing more efficient engines and quantizations. There’s a minimum bar right now, so it depends on your hardware.

      2 replies →

  • The fact that you point to the latest model as „I’d be fine with that“ proves my point.

    If expectations were static you’d be fine with qwen 2.5…but nobody sane says that today.

    It’s a moving target thus we need open weights to move