> but that goes against the business model.
Not if you are selling hardware. If I was Apple, Dell, or Lenovo, I would be pushing for local running models supporting Hugging Face while I full speed developed systems that can do inference locally.
Not if you are selling hardware. If I was Apple, Dell, or Lenovo, I would be pushing for local running models supporting Hugging Face while I full speed developed systems that can do inference locally.
Getting customers to pay for the weights would be entirely dependent on copyright law, which OpenAI already has a complicated relationship with. Quite the needle to thread: it's okay for us to ingest and regurgitate data with total disregard for how it's licensed, but under no circumstances can anyone share these weights.
Provide the weights as an add-on for customers who pay for hardware to run them. The customers will be paying for weights + hardware. I think it is the same model as buying the hardware and get the macOS for free. Apple spends $35B a year in R&D. Training GPT5 cost ~$500M. It is a nothing burger for Apple to create a model that runs locally on their hardware.
It sounds a lot like the browsers war, where the winning strategy had been to aggressively push (for free, which was rather uncommon then) one's platform, in the aim of market dominance for later benefits.
That's assuming weights are even covered by copyright law, and I have a feeling they are not in the US, since they aren't really a "work of authorship"