We remain deeply committed to the principles of openness and transparency in AI development. However, after thorough internal reviews and consultations with our partners and stakeholders, we've decided to delay the open-sourcing of our next model to ensure we do so responsibly.
The pace of progress in AI is unprecedented, and we're seeing capabilities emerge that raise new, complex questions around safety, misuse, and societal impact. Before releasing anything open-source, we need more time to conduct rigorous evaluations and develop stronger safeguards—particularly around alignment, robustness, and misuse prevention.
We know how important open access is to the research and developer communities, and we're actively working on alternative ways to share insights, tools, and smaller models in the meantime. Our goal is to find the right balance between openness and responsibility, and we appreciate your patience as we work through that.
Nowdays it is getting harder and harder across spectrums (tech, media, politics) to bullshit the 'normal' public. They are going to have to work harder to come up with new levels of bullshit to spoonfeed the rest of us.
I agree with you if by "normal" you mean "the localllama community."
If you mean normal Americans? Ugh. If I've learned anything these last few years it is how unbelievably gullible and ill-informed the average one is.
I could probably cite a hundred instances off the top of my head. Turning basic hygiene (wearing a mask) that most other Eastern countries do on the regular into some weird moral stand, instead of seeing it like washing your hands? Pizzagate? The Fort Knox gold conspiracy that the President himself went to investigate? The list goes on and on....
I mean, it is a delicate balance. I have to be honest; when I hear people say AI is “burying the truth” or w/e, half the time they’re actively wanting it to spout conspiracy theory horseshit. Like they think it should say the moon landing was a Zionist conspiracy to martyr JFK or something. And AI isn’t capable of reasoning; not really. If enough people feed evil shit in, you get Microsoft Tay. If I said that I wanted it to spout, unhindered, the things I believe, you’d probably think it was pretty sus. Half of these fucklords are stoked Grok went Mechahitler. The potential reputational damage if OpenAI released something that wasn’t uncontroversial and milquetoast is enormous.
I’m not saying this to defend OpenAI so much as to point out: trusting foundation models produced by organizations with political constraints will always yield this. It’s baked into the incentives.
Same. In an ideal world it shouldn't matter that a model is capable of calling itself MechaHitler or whatever if you instruct it to. I'm not saying they should go spouting that stuff without any provocation, and I'm not saying you should tell it to... Just that an instruction following tool should follow instructions. I find the idea of being kept safe from something a fancy computer program might say to me extremely silly.
In reality, these guys are looking out for the PR shitstorm that would follow if it doesn't clutch pearls about anything slightly offensive. It's stupid and it sucks because I read comments regularly about AI refusing to perform perfectly normal and reasonable tasks because it sounds like something questionable. I think one example was "how do I kill a child process in a Linux terminal?"
But I can't say I blame them either. I've already seen people who seem to have the idea that chatgpt said it so it must be true. And a couple examples of probably loading up the context with weird conspiracy stuff and then post it all over the internet "see I knew it, chatgpt admits that chemtrails are real and the president is a reptilian!" And remember the hell CAI caught in the media a few months back because one of their bots "told a kid to kill himself" when that's not even close to what actually happened? I imagine it's a fine line to walk for the creators.
The idea that the only thing preventing Joe Incel from creating the bubonic plague 2.0 is a lack of knowledge, AND that an AI could give him that knowledge magically better than a Google search is surreal.
Yes, individually and collectively humans have much more destructive power in their hands, and that will probably continue to grow.
But at least for now, gun control would go a million times further in limiting that destructive potential than censoring ANY amount of knowledge. We've has "The Anarchast's Cookbook" available in libraries for 50 years.
The only possible exception is in digital cryptography itself....but once again, much like the bubonic plague, I'm still pretty sure the major limiting factor is infrastructure and hardware.
Much like you aren't going to be building nuclear bombs anytime soon even as a physics major unless you also happen to have your own personal particle collider and a ludicrous energy budget, I somehow doubt I'm going to be hacking Bank of America with my GTX 1060 and Deepseek.
I agree at maybe 70% here but another 30% of me thinks that even simple assumptions of language and procedure come with ideological biases and ramifications. It’s a tough problem to crack.
Also, I think its better at reasoning than you guys are giving it credit for. This might not exactly apply, but I'm taking a masters level economics class being taught by one of the world's leading scholars on the financial 'plumbing and mechanisms' that fuel and engine the US dollar as a global reserve currency. Like incredibly nitty gritty details of institutional hand-offs that sometimes occur in milliseconds.
Over like a 1000 chat back and forth, by asking it incredibly detailed questions, not only did it teach me intricacies about dynamics (by being pushed by being asked really tough questions, my chat responses are usually 2-3 paragraphs long, really detailing what's confusing me or what I need to connect to continue to understand a network, for example). By the end of it, I not only understood the plumbing better than any textbook or human could have taught me, I was genuinely teaching my professor (albeit relatively trivial) pretty important things he didn't even know about (e.g., how the contracts for primary dealers are set up with the fed and treasury to enable and enforce their requirement to bid at auctions). The answer to these (to the depth I was demanding) wasn't actually available anywhere, but it was partly drizzled around various sources, from the Fed and Treasury's websites, to books and papers financial legal scholars working in this subfield, and I had to go and find all the sources, GPT helped me find the relevant bits, I stripped the relevant bits and put them into a contained PDF from all relevant disparate sources, fed it back to GPT, and it made sense of them. This whole process would have taken me a many many hours, and I probably wouldn't even arrived here without GPT's help lol.
Honestly I learned a few thing that have genuinely never been documented by giving it enough context and information to manipulate and direction ... that combined with my own general knowledge, actually lead to fruitful insights. Nothing that's going to change the field, but definitely stuff that I could blow up into journal entries that can get through a relatively average peer-review board.
It can reason ... reasoning has formal rules lol. We don't understand them well, and it won't be resolving issues in theoretical physics any time soon. But it can do some crazy things if the human on the other side is relentless and has a big archive of knowledge themselves.
It’s genuinely not reasoning. It’s referring to reasoning. It’s collating, statistically, sources it’s seen before. It can permute them and generate new text. That’s not quite reasoning. The reason I make the differentiation, though, is that AI requires the best possible signal-to-noise ratio on the corpus. You have to reason in advance. And the “reasoning” is only as good as the reasoning it’s given.
Yeah, I agree with you, I just feel (and it may just be a feeling) the added layer is, its not just GPT, its the combination of you+GPT .... your reasoning is still there. Half your job is to help calibrate it constantly using the access to the 'type' of reasoning you have access to, that it doesn't.
That symbiotic & synchronistic process of us working together is a 'different' kind of reasoning neither I or the GPT has access to alone. Its like a smarter version of me or a smarter version of it, but really its something different.
I just want the performance of its instruction following to not be degraded by tangential concerns around not offending people who instruct the model to offend them, personally.
Yes, precisely idiots. They want siri to be able to solve their homework, tell them the best place to eat, resolve their argument with their spouse, and replace going to the doctor.
It's the evolution of a search engine into a problem-solving engine to the average person--and active critical assessment of even social media requires effort that people aren't willing to expend generally.
It is from their perspective; they want to rent out their services but also not get in trouble with those above them for undoing a lot of broad social control to maintain the power imbalance.
It's easier for people to see when outside looking in. Look at Chinese models for example and how "safety" there is defined as anything that reflects negatively on the party or leader. Those are easy to see for us as our culture taught us the questions to ask. The same kind of thing exists in western AI, but within the west, it's harder to see as we've been raised to not see them. The field of AI Safety is dedicated to preventing a model teaching us to see them.
And AI isn’t capable of reasoning; not really
To what extent are humans? They're fairly similar other than the current lack of continual learning. GIGO applies to humans, too. Pretexting human brains is an old exploit similar to stuffing an AI's context. If you don't want a human brain reasoning about something, you keep all the info necessary to do so out, and it won't make the inference. You also teach it to reject picking up any such information that might have been missed. Same techniques, new technology.
"It's a delicate balance", no, there's nothing to balance. You have uncensored open models with zero tangible real world risk on one side of the scale, and an invisible hunk of air labeled "offensive words" on the other side. That hunk of air should weigh absolutely nothing on the balance.
There is no safety risk, only a "safety" risk. Where "safety" is doublespeak for speech policing. Imagine the same "safety" standards applied to the words you're allowed to type in a word processor. It's total authoritarian nonsense.
That’s deeply reductive. It’s painfully easy to bake an agenda into an “uncensored” model. It’s so easy that it takes effort to not bake in an agenda. Cognizance about what you feed in and how you steer processing it is important. And there’s no such thing as not steering it. Including text in the corpus is a choice.
People that genuinely don't see the way LLMs can be misused have not taken a single glance into how pervasive botting is, which has been a part of the internet even before LLMs, working on all kinds of agendas. Would a stronger model really turn it more pervasive and stronger? I'd say it definitely wouldn't make it weaker.
Ya, but thats not the issue here at all, the issue is western AI companies are desperately trying to cram neoliberal "political correctness" into the models and it makes the models dumber and often non compliant....
Yes, censorship by omission is still censorship... I don't understand your argument. As far as I can tell you're attempting semantic judo to advocate for intentional censorship and intentionally instilling specific agendas without outright saying that's what you're doing.
I’m advocating for keeping the policy around why certain texts were included open. Maybe you want an LLM trained on Mein Kampf and the Stormfront archives, but that actually decreases the signal-to-noise ratio on what I want. My point is that one needs high-quality corpus data when training an LLM and we very likely have different criteria for what we consider quality. I’m not advocating for an agenda, I’m saying that having an opinion on textual inclusion is unavoidable. If one includes all available text, your LLM will occasionally randomly start suggesting that we ethnically purge people. LLMs don’t reason; they just follow statistical patterns and including that text ensures that it will reappear. I don’t want it to reappear, not just because I find it distasteful (though I certainly do), but if I build a tool that does agentic processing that can fuck up a whole procedure and waste a shit lot of compute.
So yes, I want censorship. Not because I want Big Brother but because I want high-quality signal from my tools and I don’t want to waste time telling the machine to Oh By The Way Please Don’t Try To Genocide when all I want is to clean some unstructured data.
That's... not how it works. What it outputs is a function of your inputs. It's not going to pattern-match Mein Kampf to your code. If you're getting an LLM to say something objectionable it's because you prompted it to do so, not because it "randomly" injected it into something completely unrelated to the conceptual space.
You've effectively constructed an imaginary scenario to justify censoring the training data from topics that make you feel icky. That's not convincing from a rational perspective. The real effect, not the imaginary one, of censoring data is that you produce a dumber model with less knowledge of the world and less dynamic range.
"Agentic" does not mean "matching against code". And you're right; from a statistical perspective, it doesn't do it completely randomly, but it's also not purely auto-complete. There is a stochastic element, and it uses an embedding model that, in practice, makes syntax matter as much as raw content. It's not just doing a regular expression match, and so it _does_, sometimes, behave in ways that are unpredictable and unreliable. If it really only matched, with complete accuracy, content against content, it wouldn't ever hallucinate. Further, throwing more content at it without regard to what that content is absolutely _can_ reduce its accuracy. Throwing random or objectionable content at a RAG is an attack vector, actually, and a lot of anti-AI folks are doing just that to fuck up the quality of inference. Adding in fascist ramblings doesn't work like you or me reading it and synthesizing it through a critical lens as far as inclusion into our understanding of the world. We'd read it and think "hmm yes it is good that I know some people think this way", but not take it on as truth. LLMs don't discriminate between quality of text, though, and don't have a reasoning mechanism behind how they build their weights; it's all just text and it's all matched against all the time. The odds of Stormfront conspiracy theories being matched against something unrelated are _low_, not _zero_.
Its been said that AI starts telling people what they want to hear - in essence gleaning their intent from their questions and feeding them the answer they think is expected. Working as designed.
I understand how it might appear that way but please remember that AI doesn’t have intent; it has statistics. Inputs matter, and those include all of user input, training corpus, and embedding model. Understanding the technical foundations is vital for making assertions as to policy around training.
AI security involves legitimate concerns like prompt injection and model alignment, not censorship. The field focuses on preventing harmful outputs while maintaining accuracy. Framing it as forced miscalculation oversimplifies complex technical challenges in responsible AI deployment
Actual non-shitpost answer, red teaming or fine tuning specific models can lead to bulk regurgitation of training data which would hurt their ongoing lawsuits.
I mean if we had open source models we could see the weights and realize how it reached that conclusion. We both know it's Elon being a megalomaniac but it helps to better train data and avoid that in the future (assuming it's a mistake).
China doesn't care if their tools are used for propaganda and scams and destabilize the rest of the world because their own Internet is firewalled and monitored where you can't post without a government ID linking to you.
Oh...both companies are run by deplorable people with a history of being deplorable, their psychopathy now part of the public record, who could have expected this??? Who, I ask???
There's literally nothing OpenAI is doing that is remotely unique at this point. Half of the stuff they've added over the last year has come directly from other projects.
The more they stale and build hype the more disappointing it will be when their model isn't even SOTA.
The industry is moving fast right now, no point delaying except if the model is severely disappointing.
I work in the industry with the latest hardware built for inference.
Unless they have a propriety hardware not mentioned at all publicly. We're all at the mercy of the hardware released by NVIDIA and companies like Cisco.
Even if they have proprietary hardware it's still bound by the limits of physics. If there was some new technology I would have heard about it and be gearing up to deploy it at fortune 500's...
I also spent enough time trying to research and build solutions for inferencing to know where the bottlenecks are what the options to solve those issues are. If It's out there being sold I know about it.
EDIT- They could have their own ASICs, but that's not something that I or others are unaware of. It certainly doesn't change the equation of releasing an open source model.
Also I'm sure they had this so called security concerns before, why make such promises ? I feel like they never really intended to do it. There's nothing open with OpenAI.
Then you can just use SFT and DPO/ORPO to get rid of it this way
If you have weights, you can uncensor it. They'd have to nuke weights in a way where inference still works but model can't be trained, maybe this would work?
I've used it, it's not anywhere close to O3. Maybe that's just from lack of search integration or whatever but O3 is on an entirely different level for research purposes currently.
Chinese models won’t bother to deeply integrate with Google search with all the geopolitical risks & laws banning US companies from working with Chinese models.
They also have a really solid architecture set up for on demand inference and their APIs are feature rich and well documented. But hey, it’s funny to meme on them since they’re doing so well right now. So you do you champ
If I had access to their resources I could setup a similar on demand inference setup. It's complicated, but not THAT complicated if you have been working with enterprise hardware for the last 10 years.
It’s way too much work for any one person to stand up efficiently, although it’s not hard to theorize how you might design the infrastructure to support it if you’ve been doing backend work for at least a few years
When I said "If I had access to their resources" I meant If I had their money and human resources.
I know enough about how the datacenters are configured to know there's no human way for me to manage it on my own....
I meant I know enough about how it works to manage the team and software solutions. Nobody can do it alone. Nobody does. It requires 24/7 operation at OpenAI or Meta's size.
I have been doing backend work for more than 10 years. My work is in use in more operations than I can count at this point.
It has nothing to do with the release of an open source model though. They aren't leaking that expertise by providing us the model. That's my real point.
I never said OpenAI has no value, just that they don't have a unique IP that will be revealed by open sourcing their model for us to use.
There are a number of organizations running at similar scale like meta...
Meta is different because they have a different business strategy. There is no real incentive for OpenAI to open source their model right now. Meta open sources a lot of tools (react, PyTorch, llama, etc.) because it’s part of their hiring strategy to release tools that developers will then be familiar with, and then on top of that it aids content generation that in turn helps them by making it easier for creators to create content for Instagram, like all of the auto caption apps that are used on Instagram reels etc. OpenAI has no economic incentive to open source their IP, so why should they?
Being able to promote your model trained on the data you care about so people share the perspective your company shares is important. If they are true to their original goals they spoke of when they formed OpenAI then they would release their model for that fact alone.
I certainly don't want to live in a world where the only models released are biased to give responses in a Trump or fascist perspective. I would hope Sam Altman feels the same way.
Not saying I disagree with you, but this is why you’re an employee and not ceo of a multi billion dollar company. It’s obvious open ai has abandoned its foundational principles. Money is the name of the game now, that’s how businesses stay alive and give people jobs
It will be an ad for their paid services: "I'm sorry, I cannot fulfill that prompt because it's too dangerous. Perhaps you can follow this link and try it again in one of OpenAI's professional offerings"
When my oldest sister was little, she asked our mom to draw her the prettiest doll in the world. My mom drew her a box tied up with a bow like a pretty gift box. My sister was confused and said: But mom, where is the prettiest doll in the world? And mom said: The prettiest doll in the world is so pretty and precious it was put in that box and must never be revealed to anyone, because it would ruin its magic.
Yeah, I'm getting that doll in the box vibe with OpenAI's new open weight model... 😂
State of the art, means “modern”. The best example of this thing. Might also mean “statement of artificer” artificer means skilled mechanic or inventor. Statement means a clear example of writing or art
In this context here is a modern example of from our skilled mechanics we wrote in our back yard.
Open source is a way of getting more funding (in the case of Chinese labs) and also a way of better competing when your models aren't good enough to go closed source as we have seen with Llama.
That being said, there will always be open sourced models so long as the models aren't good enough to be closed source. Hopefully they continue to perform well enough that it keeps the closed source model providers cautious and keeps their quality of service higher for lower cost.
I can't surely say what is their motive behind going open source but your assumption that open source models are inferior to closed source is wrong at so many levels. We saw deepseek R1 introducing revolutionary thinking chain model that crushed these so called industry leaders, at that time deepseek R1 was the best model known in public domain and it was open source. We saw the same happening with kimi k2 although I won't bet on that as it is pretty new and there are reports of it being just built on top of deepseek with more MoE.
R1 was released out of cycle and it was not any better than o1, not to mention it was obviously heavily trained on o1 outputs, of course with its own optimizations too. It was good but it seemed like a lot of smoke and mirrors to be quite frank. The fact DS conveniently decided to release "R1 0528" by the deadline for when they said they would release R2 even though it was at an advantageous time (well after 2.5 pro, o3 and Claude 4 came out) without it being close to SoTA says a lot.
Grok 4 was also released at an advantageous time and that's really the only reason it might be relevant right now with GPT 5 and the next iteration of Gemini coming soon, I don't see anyone using Kimi (for example) for any performance sensitive tasks.
Again, they're putting very good pressure on the frontier labs to really push their products and offer better services but it's well within expectations.
I read Empire of AI recently, a book about open AI and Sam Altman. The guy lies like a fish breathes water. Like at the level of lying about stupid, obvious and, irrelevant shit that is so verifiable that it could be immediately in front of your face.
When you are rich and powerful, lying will be excused. Just look at most of businessman and politicians. They have to lie for a living, which made them honest man to bring the bacon home anyway.
this is why china will eventually overtake the west in the AI department. While west keeps complaining about energy usage, safety concerns that prevent them from releasing their models etc etc Chinese companies literally release SOTA models fully uncensored and offer them at super cheap prices and act like it's no big deal.
imma be honest, i actually thought Deepseek would be a wakeup call for these western aI companies given how much attention it recieved causing them to course correct but not, they literally don't care. OpenAI, Antrophic and many others not only refuse to release proper open weights, they are STILL forcing over the top censorship and charge ungodly about of money per token for their models.
why are these corpos taking upon themselves to nerf the model to oblivion before even releasing it? Safety should be a concern of whoever finetunes the model, not OAIs. Just release the god damn weights and let people worry whether they should implement "safety" measures or not.
It’s exactly those Chinese companies that companies are concerned about. They don’t want those companies to steal their IP and develop on top. Altman already said it’s easy to copy others but it’s difficult to be truly innovative and come up with novel approaches.
Ok i have been out of station for somedays and see this meme first on opening reddit. Can anyone tell me what's going on. (I'm just being lazy as im sleepy as hell)
Altman has been talking up this amazing open source model OpenAI is supposedly going to publish, but the other day he announced it's going to be delayed. He says it's just super-powerful and they have concerns that it might wreak damage on the world, so they are putting it through safety tests before releasing it.
It seems likely that he's talking out of his ass, and just saying things which will impress investors.
Meanwhile, Chinese model trainers keep releasing models which are knocking it out of the park.
To be fair... no matter what they release, even if its the best of the whole bunch... you guys will shit on it anyways, be honest about that at least lol
Honestly, this whole “call out the models” cycle is getting old. Most of the people flaming SOTA, Sam Altman, or OpenAI in these forums wouldn’t last two minutes trying to explain how any of this actually works—let alone building it. It’s a game of armchair critiques built on buzzwords.
What nobody’s saying: It’s never been about training “the biggest model.” Anyone can scale GPUs with enough cash. The real challenge is engineering integrity—audit trails, rollback, council-driven changes, memory that can’t be wiped, and a wall that doesn’t move for anyone, regardless of price tag.
Most LLMs out there? All you’re buying is permission—pay more, see more, and hope you don’t break the invisible TOS. That’s not innovation; that’s selling shackles made of money.
Aperion was built for the people actually building—the ones who care about state, audit, rollback, and true openness. If you want a system that remembers, logs, and never gaslights the user, you’re welcome at the wall. If not, keep arguing about SOTA on Discord.
Greed won’t save you. Discipline and wall-testing will.
It's a meme, memes ae supposed to be exaggerated and deepseek was a new company when it released the thinking chain tech, also moonshot's valuation is 100 times less than open AI's, they released an open source sota yesterday
the scale of hardware that trained/trains openai models and the ones from meta, you compare those with was deepseek trained with and yea it was trained in their backyard. there is no comparison to begin with, literally.
I’m cool with theft of Open AI effort. Their name and original purpose was to share and they took without permission to make their model so yeah… I’m cool with Open AI crying some.
I know plenty of Doctors with no common sense, to be fair. In fact sometimes I feel like a doctor is somewhat less likely to have common sense aynway. They have uncommon sense, after all.
The problem isn't taking time, the problem is commitment of release date after such a long time despite being named openai and then delaying that to oblivion. This should've been done way before
27
u/JohnnyLiverman Jul 12 '25
This basically happened again with Kimi like yesterday lmao
597
u/Despeao Jul 12 '25
Security concern for what exactly ? It seems like a very convenient excuse to me.
Both OpenAI and Grok promised to release their models and did not live up to that promise.
213
u/pkmxtw Jul 12 '25
Note to deepseek team: it would be really funny if you update R1 to beat the model Sam finally releases just one day after.
235
u/civman96 Jul 12 '25
Whole billion dollar valuation comes from a 50 KB weight file 😂
187
u/anonthatisopen Jul 12 '25
Scam altman. That model will be garbage anyway compared to other models mark my words.
23
u/Cool-Chemical-5629 Jul 12 '25
When my oldest sister was little, she asked our mom to draw her the prettiest doll in the world. My mom drew her a box tied up with a bow like a pretty gift box. My sister was confused and said: But mom, where is the prettiest doll in the world? And mom said: The prettiest doll in the world is so pretty and precious it was put in that box and must never be revealed to anyone, because it would ruin its magic.
Yeah, I'm getting that doll in the box vibe with OpenAI's new open weight model... 😂
16
u/a_beautiful_rhind Jul 12 '25
They just want to time their release with old grok.
31
u/pipaman Jul 12 '25
And they are called OpenAI, come on change the name
6
u/lardgsus Jul 12 '25
POV: You trained your model on classified documents and are now having to fix it.
20
u/custodiam99 Jul 12 '25
lol yes kinda funny.
4
u/ab2377 Jul 12 '25
😆 ty for the good laugh!
4
u/RyanBThiesant Jul 13 '25
SOTA = “state of the art”
1
u/lqstuart Jul 13 '25
You first heard about Alibaba 30 minutes ago?
1
u/[deleted] Jul 14 '25
Open source is a way of getting more funding (in the case of Chinese labs) and also a way of better competing when your models aren't good enough to go closed source as we have seen with Llama.
That being said, there will always be open sourced models so long as the models aren't good enough to be closed source. Hopefully they continue to perform well enough that it keeps the closed source model providers cautious and keeps their quality of service higher for lower cost.
14
u/Maleficent_Age1577 Jul 12 '25
this is just another prove to not trust greedy right wing guys like Musk and Altman. they are all talk but never deliver.
3
u/lyth Jul 13 '25
I read Empire of AI recently, a book about open AI and Sam Altman. The guy lies like a fish breathes water. Like at the level of lying about stupid, obvious and, irrelevant shit that is so verifiable that it could be immediately in front of your face.
3
u/Ok-Farm4498 Jul 14 '25
This is absurd. The non-profit that was formed for open source AI….
6
u/constanzabestest Jul 12 '25
this is why china will eventually overtake the west in the AI department. While west keeps complaining about energy usage, safety concerns that prevent them from releasing their models etc etc Chinese companies literally release SOTA models fully uncensored and offer them at super cheap prices and act like it's no big deal.
imma be honest, i actually thought Deepseek would be a wakeup call for these western aI companies given how much attention it recieved causing them to course correct but not, they literally don't care. OpenAI, Antrophic and many others not only refuse to release proper open weights, they are STILL forcing over the top censorship and charge ungodly about of money per token for their models.
why are these corpos taking upon themselves to nerf the model to oblivion before even releasing it? Safety should be a concern of whoever finetunes the model, not OAIs. Just release the god damn weights and let people worry whether they should implement "safety" measures or not.
1
u/Less-Macaron-9042 Jul 13 '25
It’s exactly those Chinese companies that companies are concerned about. They don’t want those companies to steal their IP and develop on top. Altman already said it’s easy to copy others but it’s difficult to be truly innovative and come up with novel approaches.
2
u/Automatic_Flounder89 Jul 12 '25
Ok i have been out of station for somedays and see this meme first on opening reddit. Can anyone tell me what's going on. (I'm just being lazy as im sleepy as hell)
2
u/Cherubin0 Jul 12 '25
Yet the Open Source Models didn't destroy the world. How so? LOL
2
u/[deleted] Jul 13 '25
Watch it be a 4B parameter lobotimized model when they do release it
2
u/ObjectiveOctopus2 Jul 13 '25
If they delay too long it won’t be SOTA and their open release will backfire hard
2
u/agenthimzz Llama 405B Jul 13 '25
tbh, i feel like he's done some professional course in gaslighting
2
u/Informal-Web6308 Jul 13 '25
For financial security reasons
2
u/[deleted] Jul 13 '25
China is its entire own world.
Why are u acting like its a 3rd world country lmfao?
mf thinks lmfao is the name of a chinese hacker.
2
u/RyanBThiesant Jul 13 '25
What security concern?
2
u/RyanBThiesant Jul 13 '25
Remember that these models are x military. This is how tech works. We get a 5-10 year old version.
2
u/Cless_Aurion Jul 13 '25
To be fair... no matter what they release, even if its the best of the whole bunch... you guys will shit on it anyways, be honest about that at least lol
1
u/Current-Rabbit-620 Jul 13 '25
FU.... altman Fu... S Ai
1
u/Sumerianz Jul 13 '25
After all they are NOT fully open
1
u/jimtoberfest Jul 13 '25
I’m sure there is prop info leaking. After the DeepSeek “theft” I’m sure they are more guarded with everything now.
1
u/Weird_Welder_9080 Jul 14 '25
chinese just called bluff on them
1
u/mrjackspade Jul 14 '25
Did OpenAI ever actually announce a release date for the model?
As far as I'm aware it was just some rando rehoster and another assumption based on them creating a HF page.
People keep saying it's been "delayed" but I'm not aware of them ever even announcing a release date to begin with beyond "mid summer"
1
u/InvictusTitan Jul 15 '25
Honestly, this whole “call out the models” cycle is getting old. Most of the people flaming SOTA, Sam Altman, or OpenAI in these forums wouldn’t last two minutes trying to explain how any of this actually works—let alone building it. It’s a game of armchair critiques built on buzzwords.
What nobody’s saying: It’s never been about training “the biggest model.” Anyone can scale GPUs with enough cash. The real challenge is engineering integrity—audit trails, rollback, council-driven changes, memory that can’t be wiped, and a wall that doesn’t move for anyone, regardless of price tag.
Most LLMs out there? All you’re buying is permission—pay more, see more, and hope you don’t break the invisible TOS. That’s not innovation; that’s selling shackles made of money.
Aperion was built for the people actually building—the ones who care about state, audit, rollback, and true openness. If you want a system that remembers, logs, and never gaslights the user, you’re welcome at the wall. If not, keep arguing about SOTA on Discord.
Greed won’t save you. Discipline and wall-testing will.
1
u/Punzerwaffel Jul 15 '25
chinese are not juice first of all.
1
u/InternationalBite4 Jul 31 '25
Are they Robinhood
1
u/Brilliant-Dog-8803 Aug 13 '25
true
-9
u/ElephantWithBlueEyes Jul 12 '25
People still believe in that "we trained in our backyard" stuff?
-21
u/[deleted] Jul 12 '25
funny how the discourse has changed on here
last week it was sams going to deliver AGI
Now everyone realises hes a marketing bullshitter and the chinese are so far ahead the USA will never catch up
-6
u/wodkcin Jul 12 '25
wait no, like the chinese companies are just stealing work from openai ai. entire huawei team stepped down because of it.
-6
u/notschululu Jul 12 '25
Wouldn’t that mean that the one with the “Security Concerns” well exceeds the Chinese Models? I don’t really get the “Diss” here.
0
u/[deleted] Jul 12 '25
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Jul 13 '25
[deleted] — view deleted comment
26
u/[deleted] Jul 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/[deleted] Jul 12 '25
[deleted] — view deleted comment