Microsoft only compares the price of theirs to GPT Sol(!), not GPT Terra, or GPT Luna (which is what OpenAI's Jev wannabe is based on), and certainly not Jev (4/10 the cost of Luna).
I can't remember when a new product created So many competitors so quickly. What is very clear is that everyone is saying "Doh!", slapping themselves on the forehead, and scrambling to get a slice of this obvious-in-retrospect massive pie.
What no-one appears to have done yet is to come close to Jev on pricing!
Supports GPU, NPU and CPU.
Also, section 2.3: https://typesafe.ai/legal/mca
It does say "develop (or to facilitate the development of) a similar or competing product or service", but I think it would be a long stretch to say that's the case if they would just publish benchmarks. Microsoft legal department might disagree.
I guess the fear of Chinese models is finally subsiding.
Kind of funny how much hype they can all get out of this, but Qwen really is the little engine that could. Great to see open weights (if not open source) driving the whole ecosystem like this though.
Super cool finding!
The insistence of naming it open weights as opposed to open source is getting ridiculous, and it's both irrelevant (i.e. no one cares in practice) and factually incorrect.
Weights are source in language models. Apache defines source as ""Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications". That is precisely what's happening here. Everyone is using the preferred form for making modifications to these models (including the model creators themselves). A model is "created" at init time, and then "trained" by modifying the weights.
All these models are open source. What's not open sourced (with qwen et all) is the training code. So open source model, no training code. And that's ok. There are labs that release those as well. Apertus and Olmo series come with open source models, open source training and open datasets. Nemotron comes with open source models, open source training and some open datasets, while others are not published. And that's ok too.
The fact that you see all these models being modified (from AR completion models to "decision models") and re-released should be all the proof you need. That's what a license offers you. The right to inspect, run, modify and re-release a model. A license cannot (and never did) give you any other rights. OpEnWeIgHtS is silly.
Weights are source in the same way as any x86 binary is source.
You easily modify a x86 binary and change behaviour or examine the machine code instructions. You probably are not aware how easy it is to change the behaviour of a binary executable.
I'm happy to have and be able to serve these models and see the ecosystem thrive. And lots of open innovation is outside of weights anyway as DeepSeek repeatedly shows.
Dictionary.com defines source as:
> any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin.