Every larger company I talk to these days has an active project on moving away from OpenAI and Anthropic to open models. And they’re actively shifting, as the article says, so the threat is far from theoretical.
Unless they both dramatically slash prices then they’re in big trouble. Neither of them can afford to do that and both desperately need to convince the street that the opposite will happen if they want any hope at a successful IPO.
However the cold reality for both is that there is zero moat to a model anymore. It’s a pure commodity. Those selling compute and access to open models are gearing up to wipe the floor with Open AI and Anthropic.
There are most definitely is a moat - but it works both ways. The railguards in the models create moats keeping customers out. And the cost to build a modern agentic model is in the 10 figure range and growing. This is an expensive arms race that is going to create moats.
But most commodities are the same way. It’s super expensive to drill for oil. I need oil and I’m in no position to mine my own because of the massive capital investment. But it doesn’t stop it from being a pure commodity.
I couldn’t care less which company drilled for the oil… it’s all the same to me. Models are increasingly no different.
OpenAI and Anthropic are a gas station saying “buy our gas for 10x the price!” When the world is looking at them saying it’s just gas, we’ll take the cheaper brand. We’ve tested your gas and it’s really no better than the stuff that’s 1/10th the price.
But they're all converging on capability. Do I care if it's a 72% or 74% on SWEBench? Practically, probably not. And if I'm not paying per token locally, then if it takes a tiny bit longer to get to the result, I don't care.
Fair assessment. The challenge for OpenAI and Anthropic is that they need sizeable margins to pay for the massive costs incurred. Market forces are driving things in the opposite direction and fast.
When your completion has a tiny cost base compared to yours that’s a terrible position to be in… hence their conundrum.
Except OpenAI and Anthropic has brought in a lot of money, that with this trajectory will make it some of the worst investments in ”software” ever (if it’s true enterprise clients are actively moving away, I know we are but for other reasons).
If companies are really doing this, then we're saying they have no problems spending tens of millions to get somewhat decent TPS and then having their employees complain they are timesliced and getting lots of timeouts because their org has 500 employees?
This is all spitballing, but I'd wager it's a third the type of workloads, a third hedging against your business depending on a single external provider, and a third trust.
Not everybody is coding or doing work that lends itself to burning tokens for warmth. Reuters for example seems to be more interested in using it for research, editing and formatting citations and the like. There's only so much of that work that needs doing, it doesn't always need to be real-time, and they probably don't see it scaling exponentially. They also need to be very aware and in control of their model's biases, or they risk it compromising their work output.
It's widely expected that all of the major providers will need to - and surely want to - drastically raise prices to justify the ludicrous amount of capital they're burning. Multiple companies have already talked about how their AI costs have exploded, and from what I understand that scale of enterprise is paying API rates. I would be disappointed if big business wasn't having a think about what that liability could look like. It's one thing to be reliant on a relatively "stable" vendor like Microsoft for Windows and Office, another to get AWS sticker shock, and then this is promising to be an order of magnitude worse.
Then just plain trust. What if ChatGPT starts recommending your competitors products, or the USA bars export of Anthropic's latest model (again, but for real this time), or they stop serving a model your business now depends on, and so on... That's a lot of risk to leave outside of your control.
I knew that there was no real moat from the very start, I mean, these things were close enough from the very start, how could it not result in a race to the bottom, especially as you can't really prevent distillation reliably?
I know what happens in many big companies and not a single one is moving away from Anthropic/OpenAI/SpaceXAI.
> Unless they both dramatically slash prices then they’re in big trouble
False, they have already done so many times.
> Neither of them can afford to do that and both desperately need to convince the street that the opposite will happen if they want any hope at a successful IPO.
False, margins are higher and I can have a formal bet that prices will go lower.
> However the cold reality for both is that there is zero moat to a model anymore
False, LLMs are not fungible and there exists a natural moat. I like the behaviour of Fable, not the behaviour of Opus - the fact that many people speak about this is evidence.
I don’t know what your sources are, but I work on AI at a Fortune 100 and open models now make up >90% of our internal token spend. Used to be 100% closed before this summer.
> like the behaviour of Fable, not the behaviour of Opus - the fact that many people speak about this is evidence.
I'm wondering how much of that is the harness vs the model. Overall, the 'feel' of a model seems to be largely due to the harness than the model itself.
> I can have a formal bet that prices can go lower
Is this a typo? Have you actually made a formal bet on a prediction market or something to put your money where your mouth is, or are you just saying that you could? There's a lot of things I could plausibly make bets on, but that doesn't mean that they're likely to happen.
I swear, Qwen 3.8 27B @ Q8 is smarter than Sonnet 5 most of the time. Why wouldn’t corporate America self host at this point, especially with better options like Deepseek Flash and GLM 5.3 flash that’s a middle ground between Sonnet and Opus
Agreed. And conversely, American models can also just as easily be secretly influenced for bad things, or be more tightly controlled by the government, to corporate America's own detriment.
> Some U.S. firms remain reluctant to use Chinese A.I. models because of concerns over regulation and data privacy. AT&T researches Chinese models but is not using them, Mr. Markus said. Instead, it is working with popular alternatives made by American companies such as the Gemma A.I. model from Google and the Llama A.I. models from Meta.
This makes sense since corporations require legal certainty, and using an open model from an American company (probably) provides them some level of indemnity, and also someone to sue.
The current U.S. regime is also replacing some amount of that legal certainty with regime fealty. Picking Chinese options over American ones probably runs a risk of upsetting their leader. I've got to imagine American companies are weighing this factor in their decisions.
That's certainly one factor, yes. But even before getting to that part I think the bigger issues for Big Corp legal teams is mostly around the legal ambiguity of the models themselves. What representations are made about the training data? What jurisdiction governs the license? If somebody alleges that the model infringes their IP, what rights does AT&T have?
Counterparty risk is a lot more straight-forward to evaluate when dealing entirely within the US, with US companies.
My knowledge is a few years outdated by now, but I remember digging into this and realizing that most of the chinese open-source libs were license-washing software. E.g. PaddleOCR is licensed under Apache 2.0, a very permissive license, however its models were often-times built on/fine-tunes of less permissively licensed foundation models such as Microsoft's LayoutXLM (Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 4.0). (Which in my laymans understanding is also a kind of viral license in that changes need to be shared back under a similar license?)
The link is annoying enough to find that I can imagine "Mea Culpa" being an effective enough strategy for businesses moving into the ML/AI field, changing their tune after they get caught, but matured their own software to stand on its own feet.
To me, the legal concerns seem blown out of proportion. If you use open weight models (of dubious origin) to generate code, you can still verify them with code review and tests and other methods, used to verify human output, right? That is still a great win, maybe not as much as having AI write all the code, but that would be a reasonable point in control vs quantity spectrum for most solid and well made products.
But if you let LLMs talk to people (customers, for example) directly, then yes, you need an LLM provider that you can hold responsible.
Exactly. See TikTok trouble as example and quite honestly, try a local open source LLM and ask it to use profanity, paint nudes - the LLM doesn’t answer the question of it is from OpenAI or Google.
The thing is that needs more attention is reverse engineered a LLM which is highly fascinating. I tried it, but it seems I am not there yet to put it mildly. It requires serious effort.
I am just speculating but can LLMs be sleepers? You write software and it seeds traces here and there under certain conditions that pose a serious security risk.
Or a kill switch?
I don’t know. I distrust Chinese LLMs but even more due to training data.
It is after all not a Western model. Different biases and the might be subtle but nevertheless substantial.
In short: no open source LLM may be usable without additional Finetuning for certain valid use cases.
The real value is versioning and autonomy as well as lot more stable answering despite model rot.
Also testing and the supporting systems are easier to maintain.
Since most folks still somehow review the code, I find it highly improbable, it would become visible quickly. Unless say compiling Unix parts for example. But thats compiler work and not llm.
The overwhelmingly vast majority of open-source code isn't actually looked at or audited. Yes it's there for all to see, but that doesn't mean it's doing any good at the moment, in this context.
The license you receive when you download Gemma off of Google's website is not necessarily the same license that AT&T gets when they deploy Gemma as a customer service bot. That's the whole point. AT&T can work directly with Google for a licensing and legal framework that provides certainty.
I have recently come to the conclusion that thinking for 2 seconds and using a cheap model with a slightly more detailed prompt works just as well as zero-shotting an idea with a fancy model. I work in science, and instead of asking the model “write a topic extraction algorithm”, I just say “hey look at this matrix factorization script I found in a repo, now make it use plotly and duckdb”. Have others come to the same conclusion here?
It makes me skeptical that the flagship companies are sustainable. Every company is going to maximize “fuel efficiency” to save time and money.
Then again, maybe the cheaper models have more markup for them, in which case they are probably happy w this arrangement. I’d be curious to know how the money making varies by model.
Really? It's worth it to you to spend 10 minutes thinking about how to prompt a dumber model to save $0.05? (not that open source models are dumber any more)
I'd love to! For real coding though, SOTA models barely get the job done. It wasn't until Opus 4.5 that you could really get decent results.
I'm sure this will change (and I can't wait for it!) but as of today, open models might be fine for summarizing and writing docs, but you need SOTA to work on code if you want to be competitive.
Every time I check in on this I hear a more recent model is the one where they started doing good work. I'm excited to here that Astra is where it got capable enough to work on code next year
I do think there are now open weight models that are on par with (or beating) Opus 4.5 by now (e.g. Kimi K3, GLM5.3). But yeah obviously the frontier closed source models seem to have pulled away once again, so open weight seems to be a few months behind right now (which might be too long to wait for a lot of people!).
You're not corporate America (and trust me, I mostly mean that as a plus).
I also work in software, and while I vaguely disagree that open models can't be used (they absolutely fit into productive niches here, and holy hell are the last generation [ex laguna s1, kimi k3, glm 5.3, etc] actually decent) - I will agree that SOTA are a better fit for software development, especially when used in conjunction with an already very expensive employee who's driving them.
But for "Corporate America"... no. You absolutely don't need SOTA. They're doing things like transcription, summarization, customer interaction, minor technical tasks like form creation in existing tools, report generation (ex - powerpoint, pdf, docs, etc) and other general "white collar tasks". Think about roles in business that are in the 60-85k compensation range.
It's mostly busy work that keeps existing processes flowing and the business on the rails. Important, but not research/novel.
And cheap ai... is a wonderful fit for a lot of this. No one wants to replace an employee making 80k with a less reliable AI that costs 45k a year in tokens (SOTA). But they're absolutely willing to drop 2-3k/year on AI (~100/month - right in the open model cost range) for that employee if they can get a 10% bump in productivity or happiness.
Yeah, I totally agree. I'm sure these open models are more than good enough for non-dev work. I'm also sure they'll be good enough for dev work soon enough (and some people are saying the latest already are). My point was that given the difficulty of writing great code and dealing with large systems, SOTA just recently emerged as a viable option. I expect open models to catch up soon.
I think using open-source AI is no longer about API cost but about company survival.
Take Anthropic for an example. Anthropic has successfully destroyed customer trust, at least for me. DHH in a recent interview mentioned that Claude refused to translate an article about immigration. Not summarize. Not editorialize. Translate! I think this reveals an unacceptable level of paternalism: Anthropic fundamentally believes that it possesses a moral authority superior to the people actually paying for the API. If such basic and mechanical translation is already too sensitive to touch, the goalposts have moved from safety into outright censorship. What prevents them from quietly deciding tomorrow that your proprietary business logic, financial data, or legal documents cross their invisible moral line?
Let alone how Anthropic treats Cursor and Figma - not that they are wrong as companies are free to compete legally, but nonetheless it shows that companies can't outsource their intelligence to a potential competitor.
IMO this will be a blip. There’s a lot of talk in the wake of all the Uber handwringing about token spend. Legacy enterprises want to look innovative to Wall Street without spooking them, so it’s easy to hop on the narrative and “show” that they’re innovating in a cost responsible manner.
This feels reminiscent of the big push to RAG a few years ago. And, more broadly the skunkworks projects that big companies tout in the press before they end up killing, when the operational overhead becomes too much for their liking.
Ultimately, the narrative is good for the consumer and the enterprise. It’ll mean OpenAI and anthropic will have to keep prices low. But ultimately, in the course of the next 10 years, I don’t see enterprises wanting to do this themselves. It’ll just be simpler (and eventually safer in their eyes) to send traffic to the big labs.
I had a conversation with a large group of friends and we independently came to the conclusion that Openai/Claude does not deliver more than a open source model. It takes about the same and the quality is about the same, and this does not mean it is good
At our small company we are hooked on individual subs. But yeah a larger dev shop can't really pull that off and I get how they'd be dying by the token cost.
The thing is, for big companies (or even small ones owned by PE, which is MOST of them), it's not just about cost. The big thing is risk.
In my experience as a tech diligence assessor for PE firms for the last 7 years, investors really, really don't like companies being beholded to single entities that they don't control. Anthropic and OpenAI have demonstrated that they are not trustworthy, or predicatable, or finanically safe, or even capable of hitting three fucking nines. Investors know they need companies to be on the AI train, but they really don't like vendor lockin to the big AI companies. Every diligence I get asked "how easily can they change models?"
I think when open models reach 80% or 90% capability (or maybe even less!) a whole lot of companies are going to say "almost as good with way less risk is a better deal".
I actually think they’re hooked on models they can fine tune.
You can’t further train the closed models. The open models can be fine tuned for your company. Big companies fine tune models on all the internal systems and documentation, not just through .md files (you’d blow up the context trying it that way) but actual fine tuning of open weights models. A low tier but open weights model actually beats frontier models when you do this for a specific task.
I think the frontier providers need to have a way to isolate instances (bedrock style?) and allow fine tuning to compete. Big companies are absolutely fine tuning models right now and getting better results than even the best frontier models for their use cases.
What IDE/extensions do you use for open-source LLMs? I tried VSCode with ollama and lm studio, and the experience is very subpar to the built-in copilot. It's not very usable.
I'm not seeing it. Corporate America needs someone they can sue if anything goes sideways with AI given the rate of change and legal ambiguities. It took years/decades for actual, real, open source to be widely adopted in corporations for the same reasons.
Easy prediction: LLMs will get shrunk down further and further until GenAI is just something that ships on a chip as part of your hardware. In the future it will seem quaint that we needed a network connection to talk to our LLM.
Adoption of open-source models to my mind is a similar step in that direction. In all cases, the goal is to become untethered from a mercurial vendor.
Like taalas.com (very recently acquired by AMD), or cerebras.ai (whole wafer is a chip)? As you said, I also think that is one of the main direction many companies (and academia) is moving to.
Most open source fans are also hostile to copyrights existence and are openly IP abolitionists. As such, they collectively respond with "good."
This is actual communism, and the fact that Bernie Sanders and every other member of the DSA isn't actively fighting for open source and is often fighting against all AI shows how fake their purported movements are and have always been.
If IP were entirely abolished tomorrow with no other change to our economic system, you would still not have universal Healthcare (maybe drug prices would be lower, though), Elon Musk could still donate however much he wants to get his preferred politicians elected, fossil fuels would still be used in amounts that destroy the world, etc. Very importantly, AI would still be used to try to manipulate and control the public.
The fact they prioritize other fights more than OSS, and have a rather dim view of AI, is hardly proof that they are fake.
I've been disappointed with Sanders lately, his age is showing and how he got convinced to give these LLM companies a massive federal bailout is bonkers.
Who cares about power user fans? They don't own the copyright.
Open source authors have always been protective of their copyright. There are numerous examples when drivers have been copied between BSD/Linux (I forget which direction) which led to huge flame wars.
The whole point of the GPL is that it uses copyright and copyright assignment to the FSF to protect what it calls software freedom.
BSD authors are very upset if the attribution clause isn't observed. And so on.
It is communism to exploit poor open source authors? I have to read Marx again.
Anti-capitalism does not automatically qualify as communism. Notably, if IP were to be abolished, it doesn't belong to anyone. The expectation that open anything includes some sort of DRM-like content gating is counterproductive.
> Most open source fans are also hostile to copyrights existence and are openly IP abolitionists.
Open source licenses are only enforceable because of copyright law. How are you going to enforce GPL3 when you have no legal authority to say what people are allowed to do with your code?
how much of performance comes from inference time tricks like scaling, topn ect .
maybe models providers are also in position to run their models vs running os models by a generic providerc
https://archive.is/kmOqm
Every larger company I talk to these days has an active project on moving away from OpenAI and Anthropic to open models. And they’re actively shifting, as the article says, so the threat is far from theoretical.
Unless they both dramatically slash prices then they’re in big trouble. Neither of them can afford to do that and both desperately need to convince the street that the opposite will happen if they want any hope at a successful IPO.
However the cold reality for both is that there is zero moat to a model anymore. It’s a pure commodity. Those selling compute and access to open models are gearing up to wipe the floor with Open AI and Anthropic.
There are most definitely is a moat - but it works both ways. The railguards in the models create moats keeping customers out. And the cost to build a modern agentic model is in the 10 figure range and growing. This is an expensive arms race that is going to create moats.
But most commodities are the same way. It’s super expensive to drill for oil. I need oil and I’m in no position to mine my own because of the massive capital investment. But it doesn’t stop it from being a pure commodity.
I couldn’t care less which company drilled for the oil… it’s all the same to me. Models are increasingly no different.
OpenAI and Anthropic are a gas station saying “buy our gas for 10x the price!” When the world is looking at them saying it’s just gas, we’ll take the cheaper brand. We’ve tested your gas and it’s really no better than the stuff that’s 1/10th the price.
Thats why their present business plan is screwed.
The key difference is that the models upgrade multiple times a year. It is an inherently different than a commodity market
But they're all converging on capability. Do I care if it's a 72% or 74% on SWEBench? Practically, probably not. And if I'm not paying per token locally, then if it takes a tiny bit longer to get to the result, I don't care.
Yes, but changing models, even across providers, takes about two seconds and one line of code.
It’s literally the least stickiest thing in the history of tech. Which is a big problem for these companies.
So the business challenge is to balance sizable investments and relatively small marginal costs. Not so different from other digital goods.
Fair assessment. The challenge for OpenAI and Anthropic is that they need sizeable margins to pay for the massive costs incurred. Market forces are driving things in the opposite direction and fast.
When your completion has a tiny cost base compared to yours that’s a terrible position to be in… hence their conundrum.
Except OpenAI and Anthropic has brought in a lot of money, that with this trajectory will make it some of the worst investments in ”software” ever (if it’s true enterprise clients are actively moving away, I know we are but for other reasons).
OK but even if F1 teams are a very expensive arms race it doesn't prevent me to bike to shop cheaply. You eed to have a moat around what people need.
If companies are really doing this, then we're saying they have no problems spending tens of millions to get somewhat decent TPS and then having their employees complain they are timesliced and getting lots of timeouts because their org has 500 employees?
This is all spitballing, but I'd wager it's a third the type of workloads, a third hedging against your business depending on a single external provider, and a third trust.
Not everybody is coding or doing work that lends itself to burning tokens for warmth. Reuters for example seems to be more interested in using it for research, editing and formatting citations and the like. There's only so much of that work that needs doing, it doesn't always need to be real-time, and they probably don't see it scaling exponentially. They also need to be very aware and in control of their model's biases, or they risk it compromising their work output.
It's widely expected that all of the major providers will need to - and surely want to - drastically raise prices to justify the ludicrous amount of capital they're burning. Multiple companies have already talked about how their AI costs have exploded, and from what I understand that scale of enterprise is paying API rates. I would be disappointed if big business wasn't having a think about what that liability could look like. It's one thing to be reliant on a relatively "stable" vendor like Microsoft for Windows and Office, another to get AWS sticker shock, and then this is promising to be an order of magnitude worse.
Then just plain trust. What if ChatGPT starts recommending your competitors products, or the USA bars export of Anthropic's latest model (again, but for real this time), or they stop serving a model your business now depends on, and so on... That's a lot of risk to leave outside of your control.
Open weights != self hosted
I knew that there was no real moat from the very start, I mean, these things were close enough from the very start, how could it not result in a race to the bottom, especially as you can't really prevent distillation reliably?
They have good friends in the big ballroom to not allow you to use something cheaper and be locked in on them for your own safety
I know what happens in many big companies and not a single one is moving away from Anthropic/OpenAI/SpaceXAI.
> Unless they both dramatically slash prices then they’re in big trouble
False, they have already done so many times.
> Neither of them can afford to do that and both desperately need to convince the street that the opposite will happen if they want any hope at a successful IPO.
False, margins are higher and I can have a formal bet that prices will go lower.
> However the cold reality for both is that there is zero moat to a model anymore
False, LLMs are not fungible and there exists a natural moat. I like the behaviour of Fable, not the behaviour of Opus - the fact that many people speak about this is evidence.
I don’t know what your sources are, but I work on AI at a Fortune 100 and open models now make up >90% of our internal token spend. Used to be 100% closed before this summer.
That's interesting, may I ask where you host it? Do you have trusted hosting companies that respect data privacy or do you host them yourselves?
If you use OpenAI or Anthropic trust were never a requirement in the first place.
> like the behaviour of Fable, not the behaviour of Opus - the fact that many people speak about this is evidence.
I'm wondering how much of that is the harness vs the model. Overall, the 'feel' of a model seems to be largely due to the harness than the model itself.
> I can have a formal bet that prices can go lower
Is this a typo? Have you actually made a formal bet on a prediction market or something to put your money where your mouth is, or are you just saying that you could? There's a lot of things I could plausibly make bets on, but that doesn't mean that they're likely to happen.
They couldn't pick a more sinister headline for such an awesome technological development.
I swear, Qwen 3.8 27B @ Q8 is smarter than Sonnet 5 most of the time. Why wouldn’t corporate America self host at this point, especially with better options like Deepseek Flash and GLM 5.3 flash that’s a middle ground between Sonnet and Opus
Agreed. And conversely, American models can also just as easily be secretly influenced for bad things, or be more tightly controlled by the government, to corporate America's own detriment.
@q4 is definitely smarter than sonnet from what I’ve seen so far. It’s even caught problems in code made by fable, when using it as a code reviewer.
is this actually the case? I haven't kept up with the small models
but if there's roughly Sonnet 4.6 level capable open small models, then I'd be impressed
> Why wouldn’t corporate America self host at this point
Because they've been trained to think "cloud-first" for a decade?
> Some U.S. firms remain reluctant to use Chinese A.I. models because of concerns over regulation and data privacy. AT&T researches Chinese models but is not using them, Mr. Markus said. Instead, it is working with popular alternatives made by American companies such as the Gemma A.I. model from Google and the Llama A.I. models from Meta.
This makes sense since corporations require legal certainty, and using an open model from an American company (probably) provides them some level of indemnity, and also someone to sue.
The current U.S. regime is also replacing some amount of that legal certainty with regime fealty. Picking Chinese options over American ones probably runs a risk of upsetting their leader. I've got to imagine American companies are weighing this factor in their decisions.
That's certainly one factor, yes. But even before getting to that part I think the bigger issues for Big Corp legal teams is mostly around the legal ambiguity of the models themselves. What representations are made about the training data? What jurisdiction governs the license? If somebody alleges that the model infringes their IP, what rights does AT&T have?
Counterparty risk is a lot more straight-forward to evaluate when dealing entirely within the US, with US companies.
My knowledge is a few years outdated by now, but I remember digging into this and realizing that most of the chinese open-source libs were license-washing software. E.g. PaddleOCR is licensed under Apache 2.0, a very permissive license, however its models were often-times built on/fine-tunes of less permissively licensed foundation models such as Microsoft's LayoutXLM (Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 4.0). (Which in my laymans understanding is also a kind of viral license in that changes need to be shared back under a similar license?)
The link is annoying enough to find that I can imagine "Mea Culpa" being an effective enough strategy for businesses moving into the ML/AI field, changing their tune after they get caught, but matured their own software to stand on its own feet.
To me, the legal concerns seem blown out of proportion. If you use open weight models (of dubious origin) to generate code, you can still verify them with code review and tests and other methods, used to verify human output, right? That is still a great win, maybe not as much as having AI write all the code, but that would be a reasonable point in control vs quantity spectrum for most solid and well made products.
But if you let LLMs talk to people (customers, for example) directly, then yes, you need an LLM provider that you can hold responsible.
Haven't american companies outsourced manufacturing to China for a long time now? I think they have enough experience with dealing with China.
Regime fealty has always been there in US. The current admin is just more corrupt and throughly incompetent at hiding it.
Exactly. See TikTok trouble as example and quite honestly, try a local open source LLM and ask it to use profanity, paint nudes - the LLM doesn’t answer the question of it is from OpenAI or Google.
The thing is that needs more attention is reverse engineered a LLM which is highly fascinating. I tried it, but it seems I am not there yet to put it mildly. It requires serious effort.
I am just speculating but can LLMs be sleepers? You write software and it seeds traces here and there under certain conditions that pose a serious security risk.
Or a kill switch?
I don’t know. I distrust Chinese LLMs but even more due to training data.
It is after all not a Western model. Different biases and the might be subtle but nevertheless substantial.
In short: no open source LLM may be usable without additional Finetuning for certain valid use cases.
The real value is versioning and autonomy as well as lot more stable answering despite model rot.
Also testing and the supporting systems are easier to maintain.
It is mainly an infrastructure challenge.
Since most folks still somehow review the code, I find it highly improbable, it would become visible quickly. Unless say compiling Unix parts for example. But thats compiler work and not llm.
Jia Tan would disagree.
The overwhelmingly vast majority of open-source code isn't actually looked at or audited. Yes it's there for all to see, but that doesn't mean it's doing any good at the moment, in this context.
Read the license again.
The license you receive when you download Gemma off of Google's website is not necessarily the same license that AT&T gets when they deploy Gemma as a customer service bot. That's the whole point. AT&T can work directly with Google for a licensing and legal framework that provides certainty.
I have recently come to the conclusion that thinking for 2 seconds and using a cheap model with a slightly more detailed prompt works just as well as zero-shotting an idea with a fancy model. I work in science, and instead of asking the model “write a topic extraction algorithm”, I just say “hey look at this matrix factorization script I found in a repo, now make it use plotly and duckdb”. Have others come to the same conclusion here?
It makes me skeptical that the flagship companies are sustainable. Every company is going to maximize “fuel efficiency” to save time and money.
Then again, maybe the cheaper models have more markup for them, in which case they are probably happy w this arrangement. I’d be curious to know how the money making varies by model.
Really? It's worth it to you to spend 10 minutes thinking about how to prompt a dumber model to save $0.05? (not that open source models are dumber any more)
I'd love to! For real coding though, SOTA models barely get the job done. It wasn't until Opus 4.5 that you could really get decent results.
I'm sure this will change (and I can't wait for it!) but as of today, open models might be fine for summarizing and writing docs, but you need SOTA to work on code if you want to be competitive.
Every time I check in on this I hear a more recent model is the one where they started doing good work. I'm excited to here that Astra is where it got capable enough to work on code next year
I think it truly just was Opus 4.5 where LLMs became usable for coding.
Yeah what, I'm using flash models and getting a ton of stuff done. 300-400b param size with pi.dev
I do think there are now open weight models that are on par with (or beating) Opus 4.5 by now (e.g. Kimi K3, GLM5.3). But yeah obviously the frontier closed source models seem to have pulled away once again, so open weight seems to be a few months behind right now (which might be too long to wait for a lot of people!).
You're not corporate America (and trust me, I mostly mean that as a plus).
I also work in software, and while I vaguely disagree that open models can't be used (they absolutely fit into productive niches here, and holy hell are the last generation [ex laguna s1, kimi k3, glm 5.3, etc] actually decent) - I will agree that SOTA are a better fit for software development, especially when used in conjunction with an already very expensive employee who's driving them.
But for "Corporate America"... no. You absolutely don't need SOTA. They're doing things like transcription, summarization, customer interaction, minor technical tasks like form creation in existing tools, report generation (ex - powerpoint, pdf, docs, etc) and other general "white collar tasks". Think about roles in business that are in the 60-85k compensation range.
It's mostly busy work that keeps existing processes flowing and the business on the rails. Important, but not research/novel.
And cheap ai... is a wonderful fit for a lot of this. No one wants to replace an employee making 80k with a less reliable AI that costs 45k a year in tokens (SOTA). But they're absolutely willing to drop 2-3k/year on AI (~100/month - right in the open model cost range) for that employee if they can get a 10% bump in productivity or happiness.
Yeah, I totally agree. I'm sure these open models are more than good enough for non-dev work. I'm also sure they'll be good enough for dev work soon enough (and some people are saying the latest already are). My point was that given the difficulty of writing great code and dealing with large systems, SOTA just recently emerged as a viable option. I expect open models to catch up soon.
I think using open-source AI is no longer about API cost but about company survival.
Take Anthropic for an example. Anthropic has successfully destroyed customer trust, at least for me. DHH in a recent interview mentioned that Claude refused to translate an article about immigration. Not summarize. Not editorialize. Translate! I think this reveals an unacceptable level of paternalism: Anthropic fundamentally believes that it possesses a moral authority superior to the people actually paying for the API. If such basic and mechanical translation is already too sensitive to touch, the goalposts have moved from safety into outright censorship. What prevents them from quietly deciding tomorrow that your proprietary business logic, financial data, or legal documents cross their invisible moral line?
Let alone how Anthropic treats Cursor and Figma - not that they are wrong as companies are free to compete legally, but nonetheless it shows that companies can't outsource their intelligence to a potential competitor.
IMO this will be a blip. There’s a lot of talk in the wake of all the Uber handwringing about token spend. Legacy enterprises want to look innovative to Wall Street without spooking them, so it’s easy to hop on the narrative and “show” that they’re innovating in a cost responsible manner.
This feels reminiscent of the big push to RAG a few years ago. And, more broadly the skunkworks projects that big companies tout in the press before they end up killing, when the operational overhead becomes too much for their liking.
Ultimately, the narrative is good for the consumer and the enterprise. It’ll mean OpenAI and anthropic will have to keep prices low. But ultimately, in the course of the next 10 years, I don’t see enterprises wanting to do this themselves. It’ll just be simpler (and eventually safer in their eyes) to send traffic to the big labs.
I had a conversation with a large group of friends and we independently came to the conclusion that Openai/Claude does not deliver more than a open source model. It takes about the same and the quality is about the same, and this does not mean it is good
At our small company we are hooked on individual subs. But yeah a larger dev shop can't really pull that off and I get how they'd be dying by the token cost.
The thing is, for big companies (or even small ones owned by PE, which is MOST of them), it's not just about cost. The big thing is risk.
In my experience as a tech diligence assessor for PE firms for the last 7 years, investors really, really don't like companies being beholded to single entities that they don't control. Anthropic and OpenAI have demonstrated that they are not trustworthy, or predicatable, or finanically safe, or even capable of hitting three fucking nines. Investors know they need companies to be on the AI train, but they really don't like vendor lockin to the big AI companies. Every diligence I get asked "how easily can they change models?"
I think when open models reach 80% or 90% capability (or maybe even less!) a whole lot of companies are going to say "almost as good with way less risk is a better deal".
I think what they're really getting hooked on is the lowest cost provider.
Which makes the Muse 1.3 launch this week particularly interesting, although to get the low cost version you do need to agree to share data with Meta.
I actually think they’re hooked on models they can fine tune.
You can’t further train the closed models. The open models can be fine tuned for your company. Big companies fine tune models on all the internal systems and documentation, not just through .md files (you’d blow up the context trying it that way) but actual fine tuning of open weights models. A low tier but open weights model actually beats frontier models when you do this for a specific task.
I think the frontier providers need to have a way to isolate instances (bedrock style?) and allow fine tuning to compete. Big companies are absolutely fine tuning models right now and getting better results than even the best frontier models for their use cases.
What IDE/extensions do you use for open-source LLMs? I tried VSCode with ollama and lm studio, and the experience is very subpar to the built-in copilot. It's not very usable.
https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B
No one I know uses the built in VSCode extensions anymore. It's all TUIs now. You can use Opencode as a TUI now for local.
I'm not seeing it. Corporate America needs someone they can sue if anything goes sideways with AI given the rate of change and legal ambiguities. It took years/decades for actual, real, open source to be widely adopted in corporations for the same reasons.
Corporate America has been using open source for decades, and it wasn’t anywhere as slow as you portray. This argument simply doesn’t hold water.
Besides, in their present rather dire financial state there isn’t much to sue these companies for anyway cash wise. NYTimes is suing on IP grounds.
Easy prediction: LLMs will get shrunk down further and further until GenAI is just something that ships on a chip as part of your hardware. In the future it will seem quaint that we needed a network connection to talk to our LLM.
Adoption of open-source models to my mind is a similar step in that direction. In all cases, the goal is to become untethered from a mercurial vendor.
Yeah, I'm looking forward to this actually.
https://chatjimmy.ai/ blew my mind at how fast etched model weights can be.
For on-device LLMs, there's a point of diminishing returns, meaning you don't need to have the latest frontier model for most operations.
Like taalas.com (very recently acquired by AMD), or cerebras.ai (whole wafer is a chip)? As you said, I also think that is one of the main direction many companies (and academia) is moving to.
How is the NYT's copyright lawsuit against OpenAI going and why have you abandoned your start witness Suchir Balaji?
Have you been brought into line? Open source AI also violates copyrights.
Oh no! I'll make sure to tell the Chinese companies about the copyright risks.
Most open source fans are also hostile to copyrights existence and are openly IP abolitionists. As such, they collectively respond with "good."
This is actual communism, and the fact that Bernie Sanders and every other member of the DSA isn't actively fighting for open source and is often fighting against all AI shows how fake their purported movements are and have always been.
If IP were entirely abolished tomorrow with no other change to our economic system, you would still not have universal Healthcare (maybe drug prices would be lower, though), Elon Musk could still donate however much he wants to get his preferred politicians elected, fossil fuels would still be used in amounts that destroy the world, etc. Very importantly, AI would still be used to try to manipulate and control the public.
The fact they prioritize other fights more than OSS, and have a rather dim view of AI, is hardly proof that they are fake.
There's no reason that one's feelings about AI can't supersede their feelings about open source. We all live with a complex tapestry of values.
While I don’t disagree that they should be fighting for open source AI, Sanders is hardly “fighting against all AI”.
https://jacobin.com/2026/07/ai-nationalization-sanders-liber...
I've been disappointed with Sanders lately, his age is showing and how he got convinced to give these LLM companies a massive federal bailout is bonkers.
Who cares about power user fans? They don't own the copyright.
Open source authors have always been protective of their copyright. There are numerous examples when drivers have been copied between BSD/Linux (I forget which direction) which led to huge flame wars.
The whole point of the GPL is that it uses copyright and copyright assignment to the FSF to protect what it calls software freedom.
BSD authors are very upset if the attribution clause isn't observed. And so on.
It is communism to exploit poor open source authors? I have to read Marx again.
Wanting to replace monopolies with competitive markets is the strangest definition of "actual communism" I have ever heard.
Anti-capitalism does not automatically qualify as communism. Notably, if IP were to be abolished, it doesn't belong to anyone. The expectation that open anything includes some sort of DRM-like content gating is counterproductive.
> Most open source fans are also hostile to copyrights existence and are openly IP abolitionists.
Open source licenses are only enforceable because of copyright law. How are you going to enforce GPL3 when you have no legal authority to say what people are allowed to do with your code?
how much of performance comes from inference time tricks like scaling, topn ect . maybe models providers are also in position to run their models vs running os models by a generic providerc
Just use OpenRouter
Google can make themselves the heroes of the AI story by releasing a 120B dense Gemma model.
They already released the transformers paper, and I'm sure they are now scratching their head about it.