>Last December, we launched QVQ-72B-Preview as an exploratory model, but it had many issues.

That's an earlier version released some months ago. They even acknowledge it.

The version they present in the blog post and you can run in their chat platform is not open or available to download.

wisdom? I don't get what you meant with that. What is clear is that open weights benefits society as we can run it locally and privately.

I notice four downvotes so far for stating a fact that a debate exists. My comment above didn't even make a normative claim. For those who study AI risks, there is indeed a _debate_ about the pros and cons of open weights. The question of "what are the implications of open-weight models?" is not an ideological one; it is a logical and empirical one.

I'm not complaining; it is useful to get an aggregated signal. In a sense, I like the downvotes, because it means there are people I might be able to persuade.

So how do I make the case? Remember, I'm not even making an argument for one side or the other! My argument is simply: be curious. If appropriate, admit to yourself e.g. "you know, I haven't actually studied all sides of the issue yet; let me research and write down my thinking..."

Here's my claim: when it comes to AI and society, you gotta get out of your own head. You have to get out of the building. You might even have to get out of Silicon Valley. Go learn about arguments for and against open-weights models. You don't have to agree with them.

Is there a good wisdom benchmark we can run on those weights? /s