Why would that be? one of the nice features of the sans-io pattern is that it seperates your HAL from the program itself; if your state machine says "send a network packet", send it using embassy (or tokio or bsd-sockets or whatever). The underlying libraries have little or no bearing on "write your program as a big synchronous state-machine"
same goes for "wait 10 ms" or "change this gpio pin".
Test code doesn't need to live on the device itself. You can call no_std code from std code and tell the compiler "hey, this code is only ran on hosts that have access to std" without trying to bundle the std library into your no_core code. You're not going to able to test I/O (does this function actually set Pin0 to HIGH or LOW) but you can test logic.
The moat never was and will never be the models, it's the hardware. This is exactly like nuclear weapons: The recipe for a nuke isn't a hidden secret. Getting the infrastructure and materials is completely unreachable for non-state and non-corporate actors. This idea of a "rogue individual" using a frontier model to develop a bioweapon is a complete myth, because anyone with the capability to run the models without guardrails has to answer to/be audited by some entity already.
The argument is that it will make $OAI and $ATHR billions of dollars because U.S. customers with deep pockets will have nowhere to go but the "vetted as safe and verified model providers" aka the duopoly. No one with two brain cells to rub together takes anything they or the current U.S. government has to say at face value.
This is a tale as old as the industrial revolution. I can only hope people see the trick for what it is this time.
> If the maintainer of the largest and most consequential open-source project on the planet can treat LLMs as a tool to be judged on its results rather than a category to be banned on sight, a backyard code forge can manage the same.
Apples to Oranges here. Linus has himself and the entirety of the Linux Foundation maintainers + outside contributors to effectively review and gatekeep llm slop from making into ONE codebase.
Codeberg has presumably way less people working for it than the Linux Foundation, and has to monitor an avalanche of codebases for slop. Of course they aren't going to be able to pull off what Linux can do.
When talking about "open source" models no one is talking about the legal framework and textual doctrine of open source. They simply want to know: "can I run this on hardware I own or no?" That's it. It's simply about control. If you don't think there's a difference between models you can download and run on hardware you own, regardless of how big it is, vs. models you can only talk to through an API, you are seeing the forest for the trees.
You are also indirectly helping the closed SOTA model toll-keepers by taking the focus away from their mass copyright theft and onto some pointless textbook definition.
It is a given. Unless the Trump admin figures out how to ban 1s and 0s, you can't stop Chinese labs from open sourcing their models. They can certainly ban new providers from using the Chinese models, but they can't ban Canadian ones, European ones, other Asian countries etc. from setting up provider proxies and bypassing those rules. Then what, great firewall of USA? Block off all internet traffic to other countries? Bye bye economy.
I think the burden of proof is on the closed SOTA model providers to prove they have a moat, because common sense indicates they don't.
Yes, banning 1s and 0s is completely impossible and unprecedented /s. I wouldn't choose either as a default until the dust settles. Either way, I wanted to point out the unstated assumption. Whether you personally believe it's a foregone conclusion or not, it's an essential part of the logic chain that not everyone will agree to.
It's a gamble, stats, so what is the probability that moat can be protected to the tune of trillions of dollars of incremental enterprise value creation in the AI industry? Would you bet your retirement funds on it? Would you want the government to bail them out if a financial collapse occurs because of it? I think most reasonable people do not think it's worth the risk, and the more important part I highlighted is the fundamental economics of this industry were never worth the investment/risk. Clever capitalists will always find a way, which this accounting shell game is evidence of.
https://embassy.dev/
reply