>A user should be able to close an account, keep a session, and hand it to another model. The new model may disagree, ask questions, or perform worse.
I think this is a fair contract. I also think a user should ideally be able to easily identify a comparable model in terms of embedding 'signature'. When GPT-4o originally kicked the bucket, I remember reading lots of anecdotes of people desperately searching for models similar in manner and language, so they could pump in their exports and re-find their friend. Other open-ai models just didn't have the same vibe. It was sad to read. This, to me, is the power of open-weights models. They are for perpetuity. You can keep your guide, your friend, your therapist, whatever. No big company can pull the rug.
I get the point of the article and it resonates with my general tendency to support more openness, but older and more cynical me wonders how much of this is a battle worth fighting or a self-serving argument from an harness developer.
I mean, the article says each of the points it is complaining about has “_a basic justification that's trivial for a provider to come up with, along with good arguments for why this is good for the user_“, which to me sounds like implying these are just bs to have people accept them, but is that actually the case?
For instance, this [0] was mentioned here a while ago, and based on that it seems pretty clear why one would choose not to provide the _thinking_ anymore…
I think this is a fair contract. I also think a user should ideally be able to easily identify a comparable model in terms of embedding 'signature'. When GPT-4o originally kicked the bucket, I remember reading lots of anecdotes of people desperately searching for models similar in manner and language, so they could pump in their exports and re-find their friend. Other open-ai models just didn't have the same vibe. It was sad to read. This, to me, is the power of open-weights models. They are for perpetuity. You can keep your guide, your friend, your therapist, whatever. No big company can pull the rug.
I mean, the article says each of the points it is complaining about has “_a basic justification that's trivial for a provider to come up with, along with good arguments for why this is good for the user_“, which to me sounds like implying these are just bs to have people accept them, but is that actually the case?
For instance, this [0] was mentioned here a while ago, and based on that it seems pretty clear why one would choose not to provide the _thinking_ anymore…
[0] https://role-confusion.github.io/