DS4 also has some neat new arch improvements, giving it a lot of context at lower VRAM usage. So it will be cheaper to serve, B for B than previous models.
The weights may nominally be legally copyrighted, but the rightsholder certainly doesn't seem to be making anything resembling a serious effort to actually assert or defend those rights; on the contrary, they are doing the exact opposite by maximizing the gratis distribution, including knowingly and willingly via third parties, with no copy protection whatsoever, and no reasonable expectation of non-distribution.
They are not behaving like an entity trying to protect valuable intellectual property, they are behaving like an entity trying to reap the reputational and network effect benefits of maximizing the free distribution of a public good.
Less memory usage by the KV cache doesn't mean cheaper to serve overall. Once you've acquired hardware (for which you need more to serve DS4L than Minimax M2.7, the former being ~54B total params larger model to begin with, and which KV cache memory efficiency does nothing to address), the capex cost is basically fixed and opex just comes down to power draw, which will be marginally higher per token with DS4L than with M2.7 owed to the slower speeds that result from 13B active params vs 10B active params on forward passes during TG.
DSv4-flash is currently being served at 0.14/0.24 $/MTok by most of the providers (8 as of writing this) and even a bit cheaper by 2 providers.
Minimax2.7 is being served at 0.30/1.20 $/MTok by most providers (4 providers as of writing this) and double that price by 2 providers.
As for the first part of your message, this is actually a good illustration of the miss-understanding of licensing LLMs. There are open-source models out there (Apache 2.0 and MIT) and there are also source-available (i.e. open weights) in llamas, minimax2.7 and something in between with the latest kimi (MIT w/ attribution). Open source in the context of LLMs means that you get a license to run, inspect, modify and re-release a model. It was never about data or training. But that's a very common interpretation, that's wrong IMO. But I get that it's contested, so anyway. Sorry for the tangent.
I am currently serving Minimax M2.7 to myself at ~$0.015/1M blended tokens worth of electricity on my own local hardware, where I get all of the confidentiality, integrity, and availability benefits that are lost when choosing to run open weight models on someone else's API.
Open source means that all of the information necessary to recreate the final product is public, which in the context of LLMs, would include all of the training material, and build instructions (scripts to do the training). Very few models actually achieve this - Nemotron family is the only one that comes top of mind. A license to run, inspect, modify, and re-release is a good improvement on open weight models, but does not alone amount to the model actually being open source.
You are welcome to an alternative understanding of the definition of open source - as you correctly note, it's a contested term - just know that your definition is not the more widely accepted one that people think of when they hear "open source".
Your version of the term is much more aligned with the OSI, which was a federation of anti-FLOSS industry bodies created with the intent to capture, redefine, and weaken the original spirit of the FLOSS movement, which predates the OSI by almost a decade - the GPL was first released in '89, compared to the OSI's formation in '98 by members of the $10B for-profit Netscape Corporation, who's flasgship product was originally proprietary and was only open sourced after commercial failure against proprietary competitors.
None of this should be construed as an implication that I'm anti-open-weight. As I mentioned earlier, I think open weight models fulfill a lot of the spirit of open source. While a world where truly open source models are the norm is obviously preferable to a world where only open weight models are the norm, a world where only open weight models are the norm is still vastly preferable to a world where proprietary models running on other people's hardware is the norm.
I just think that we should be careful to avoid watering down terminology in ways that serve proprietary commercial interests over the interests of the public and of users. Open-washing is real, and it harms the intersts of users.
eeeh? what?
the whole reason "open-weights" phrase got coined was because corps started sharing weights, but no way to replicate the training that created it
it was viewed the same as sharing compiled binary, but no source code - against the whole point of open-source
FWIW, I find that in OpenCode it starts becoming erratic after around 80k tokens (sometimes less).
https://artificialanalysis.ai/leaderboards/models?weights=op...
1. DS4F can run on a 128GB MacBook. M2.7 is larger (8 bit weights of routed experts). There is to see how it holds at 4 bits. At 2 bits it may not work well at all.
2. Just the KV cache of M2.7 would take ~50GB for 200k tokens AFAIK. It does not have the compressed KV cache that DS4F features.
3. The models are very similar in performances, despite all that. And DS4F is likely getting an update soon.
So it is basically a quasi-frontier model that can run on a 96/128GB MacBook at large context windows. That's non trivial. Likely a coding version could be released in the future.
M2.7 is smaller than DS4, 230B total params vs 284B total params. At any given quantization level, M2.7 will require ~19% less memory for the weights than DS4F at the same quantization level. Both can be quantized to arbitrary precision levels. Larger models like these quantize much better at lower precision than smaller models do. There is still loss, but it's less catastrophic in terms of usability degradation than for say, 27B or 14B or 8B models. Again, n=1, but M2.7 holds up phenomenally well for me with unsloth's IQ2_XXS UD.
>2. Just the KV cache of M2.7 would take ~50GB for 200k tokens AFAIK. It does not have the compressed KV cache that DS4F features.
KV cache weights can also be quantized. At Q8_0, this is essentially lossless. I can fit a 400k context window with Q8_0 KV cache quantization along with unsloth's IQ2_XXS UD weight quantization (plus my running OS) on a machine with just 128 GB of unified memory. Strix Halo, not Apple Silicon. There are more exotic approaches to KV cache quantization with much higher efficiency, like TurboQuant, but this is besides the point.
>3. The models are very similar in performances, despite all that. And DS4F is likely getting an update soon.
Yes, though it's worth noting that DS4F does require about 20% more total memory for weights at any given quantization level (284B vs 230B), will need to shuffle about 30% more data through the pipeline on every forward pass (A13B vs A10B), has much higher hallucination rates per AA, and hasn't been fully post-trained. DS4 isn't a base model, it has been instruct trained, tool trained, etc, but there is a lot of capability that has been left on the table as of current checkpoints, which are what's actually available now.
>So it is basically a quasi-frontier model that can run on a 96/128GB MacBook at large context windows. That's non trivial. Likely a coding version could be released in the future.
MiniMax M2.7 fits into this same box - quasi-frontier model that can run on 96/128GB unified memory platforms with a large context window. You're right that it's non-trivial. My preference comes in part from the fact that M2.7 already is coding focused, and had been out for almost 2 months before DS4F showed up.
By the way, in spite of my preference for M2.7 over DS4F (and for Vulkan over ROCm on my hardware), I'm a big fan of your work on DarkStar 4. I admire what you've achieved with the project, how much work you've put into it, and your willingness to share that with the world, too. Thank you for your contributions to the open LLM ecosystem.