Insisting on comparing open source options to the state of the art leader is white supremacy? Why not sexism and transphobia too?
The question this raises is, who has access to state-of-the-art AI tech, and who does not, and might these groups have a racial dimension? Objectively, surely they do? Don’t lightweight models therefore serve an important democratizing purpose, in that they make this tech accessible to (for instance) people in developing nations who are overwhelmingly black and brown?
It's just that at the moment I'm finding the open source LLM community hard to contextualize from an outside perspective. Maybe it's because things are moving so fast (probably a good thing).
I just know that personally, I'm not going to be exploring any projects until I know they're near or exceeding GPT-4 performance level. And it's hard to develop an interest in anything else other than GPT-4 when comparison is so tough to begin with.
Typical reasons are highly specialised models that are cheap and fast to train, lack of censorship, lack of API and usage restrictions, lightweight variants and so on. The reason there's a lot of excitement right now is indeed how fast the space is moving.
https://www.semianalysis.com/p/google-we-have-no-moat-and-ne...