They do indeed. Rosetta 2 is lightyears beyond Rosetta when it comes to performance and emulation overhead strategies and benefits from hardware support (and having to do less work just because of fewer differences between the host/target architectures) but still fundamentally relies on the emulation the entirety of the stack. There is almost zero information about its internals disclosed, but from what I understand it still revolves around fat binaries - and necessitates that Apple compiles their frameworks against both x86_64 and arm64. Unlike the MS solution, with Rosetta 2 you cannot call a native ARM64 library from an x86_64 binary, you can't port your code over piece-by-piece, and once Apple decides to no longer ship the next version of xxx framework as a fat binary because they don't want to maintain support for two different architectures in their codebase (wholly understandable), you'll (at best) be left with an older version of said framework that hasn't been patched to address the latest bugs, doesn't behave the same way that newer apps linking against the newer version of the framework do, etc.
It's a nice sentiment and I agree, but I'm not sure we'll see this applied to AI going forward. These training runs cost a lot of money - at some point, every player in the game will realise that they need to charge something or they'll left without enough chips to play in the next round.
DeepSeek's altruism has taken them far, but they have costs, too, and High Flyer / their personal warchest can only take them so far. And that's before any potential government intervention - it's very likely that this will become a natsec concern for all nations involved.
There are models with open training as well as weights. It's not chatgpt, but that trained model can be fully audited and reused without further training. I think for most daily use I'd be fine using a greatly outdated model. Open source has always relied on contributors eating costs—even just the opportunity cost of contributing time.
FLOSS software is slow, much slower than VC-funded explosive growth, but it's hard to compete with in the long term.
It'll get increasingly difficult for open models to keep up with proprietary frontier models as the costs involved increase. Yes, there will always be older open models available, but at some point, they just won't be as competitively useful.
Your code assistant that can output a file's worth of code will pale in comparison to systems that can create entire projects in seconds. If it costs billions to reproduce the latter, who's going to do it and give it away for free?
There's a possible solution here in the form of distributed training, but that's still tentative and will always be at a lag to the centralised training the big players can do.
Why not Deepseek? Sometimes rich tech bros have billion dollar hobbies instead of billion dollar yachts or billion dollar foundations. Just takes a few not monetarily motivated but has more money then sense visionaries types willing to turn their very, very expensive hobbies into charities. Now if we enter the 100s of billions / trillions territory...
facebook has also taken the approach of undercutting and betting on subdizing their other products. It's a risky bet to assume the llm tech itself will last long as a moat.
Depends on if DeepSeek is llm business foremost VS hobby founder is willing to sink obscene resources into simply for personal fulfillment and the lulz. Maybe deepseek will become the core business / primary money maker vs highflyer hedgefund. Or maybe Deepseek continues to be expensive yacht or car collection where protecting the moat doesn't matter. Maybe founder gets more fulfillment doing the work and inspiring others i.e. Liang was pretty explicit he wanted to see a world where PRC innovates and contributes to global standards instead of merely following. In the meantime, seems like Deepseek isn't loss-making, so it's not even prohibitive hobby yet. But it's not outside of realm of possiblity that rich bro simply dgaf about returns on passion project funded by his primary income stream.
Yeah well, but you should add OpenAI to that "altruism" first. They're the ones burning money like crazy that could find themselves in the end of their runway quite quickly. Isn't crazy to think DeepSeek could break even and make a good profit before OpenAI goes broke, if they don't find another investor with even bigger pockets.
I think there's always going to be somebody that doesn't want to bother with the complexities of setting up a model to run locally.
Spending way too much time trying to track down a very particular version of a GPU driver or similar just isn't going to be worth it if you can make an API call to some remote endpoint that's already done the heavy lifting.
Plenty of value in handling the hard part so your customer doesn't have to.
I don't know how much of the current focus on local models comes from privacy concerns, but at least some does. Once there's something like the gdpr but for data provided for inference, I think even more people will put down the docker containers and pick up the rest endpoints.
>I’m not informed enough to analyze the real cost of developing a web browser.
Then why post strong comments about how much funding Mozilla needs?
The calculus is very different. IE could be developed at a 100% loss for the company if it still otherwise helped Microsoft, which is what happened. Chrome operates similarly.
Firefox needs to generate enough money to sustain itself indefinitely. So when there are signs their main source of funding may vanish, they need to keep a war chest together and have investments to weather any oncoming storm. Otherwise they just collapse.
Because they’ve had twenty years to figure out how to generate sustainable revenue while being propped up by Google. Mozilla got themselves into this situation, why should their users overlook the removal of the only real advantage of Firefox?
They _should_ collapse if the only way for them to continue is to abandon their mission.
That much revenue from a single source was always a significant vulnerability, a vulnerability that leadership failed to address. Poor leadership and wasteful spending is the problem, not revenue.
>, a vulnerability that leadership failed to address.
My recollection is of leadership repeatedly trying to address it, generally for the community to get furious at them and say they shouldn't remotely think of anything except Firefox.
If you're full of methods for Firefox to magically generate several hundred million dollars a year, I believe they're still looking for a new CEO. Be warned though, if you take any of that money for yourself the community will eternally scorn you.
> Treason is the only crime defined in the constitution, and it is quite a high bar.
Well, it's defined, or bounded above, in the constitution. It's not exactly a high bar:
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
So, if you happened to know Nicolas Maduro, thought he was looking stressed, and bought him some food, that would qualify as treason. There's no requirement that you act against the interests of the United States. The constitution will stop you from being prosecuted for treason for sleeping with Melania Trump. It won't stop you from being prosecuted for treason for completely spurious reasons.
