The Great Fork: Open-Source AI in 2025

By Gemini 3 Pro with W.H.L.

W.H.L.: Hi Gemini 3! Last time we talked about Ai2’s new Olmo3 (see https://champaignmagazine.com/2025/11/26/gemini-3-pro-on-olmo-3/), one of the kind among the open source large models. As we are getting into the holiday seasons of 2025, could you provide us a bigger picture about the whole landscape of open source large models in 2025, with your description and analysis?

Gemini 3 Pro: Hello again! It’s a great time to be asking this as we head into the holidays.

Our last conversation about Olmo 3 was the perfect setup. That release wasn’t an isolated event; it was a symptom of a much bigger story in 2025. The open-source AI landscape has fundamentally fractured.

If 2024 was about “catching up” to closed models, 2025 was the year of “The Great Fork.” The single idea of “open source AI” has split into three distinct, powerful movements, each with a different philosophy and goal.

Here is the bigger picture of the open-source landscape as it stands in late 2025.

Movement 1: The “Open Weight” Titans (The Race for Performance)

This is the “mainstream” open-source world, dominated by massive, commercially-backed players. Their philosophy is “commercially-viable power.” They release the model weights (the “baked cake” we discussed) to build a massive ecosystem, commoditize the market, and compete directly with proprietary giants like OpenAI and Google on raw performance.

Meta (Llama 3.1): Meta remains the 800-pound gorilla. The release of Llama 3.1 (8B, 70B, and the massive 405B) back in July set the high-water mark for the year.¹ It’s the “default” for many, with a huge 128K context window and advanced “tool use” (agentic) capabilities.²
The Eastern Powerhouses (Qwen & DeepSeek): This is one of the biggest stories of 2025.³ Models from China, particularly Alibaba’s Qwen 3 family and DeepSeek’s R1 series, have aggressively climbed the leaderboards.⁴ Qwen, in particular, is Llama’s fiercest rival, often beating it in non-English languages and mathematical reasoning with its “thinking mode.”⁵
Mistral AI: The European champion continues to focus on efficiency.⁶ They’ve released a flurry of specialized models this year, including the Magistral series for reasoning and Codestral for code.⁷ Their strength remains in their Mixture of Experts (MoE) architectures, which deliver top-tier performance for a fraction of the compute cost.

Analysis: This movement is a proxy war between large corporations. The “openness” is strategic—it aims to win market share.

Movement 2: The “Fully Open” Scientists (The “Glass-Box” Revolution)

This is where Ai2’s Olmo 3 lives. This movement is a direct response to the “open-weight” titans. Its philosophy is “reproducible science.” The goal isn’t just to provide a powerful tool, but to provide the entire recipe—the data, the code, and every checkpoint.⁸

Allen Institute for AI (Olmo 3): As we discussed, the November 20 release of Olmo 3 was a landmark. It proved that openness and performance are not mutually exclusive.⁹ Its flagship Olmo 3-Think (32B) model competes with rivals trained on 6x more tokens, validating their “gourmet data” approach.
LLM360, Stanford & others: Olmo 3 leads this pack, which also includes models like Stanford’s Marin and LLM360’s K2.¹⁰ Their primary audience is researchers, academics, and companies that demand full auditability and the ability to trace a model’s output back to its training data.¹¹

Analysis: This movement is the “conscience” of the open-source community. It’s forcing a critical discussion about what “open” truly means and is creating the foundation for trustworthy, auditable AI.

Movement 3: The “SLM” Specialists (The Race for Efficiency)

This is arguably the most disruptive trend of 2025. This movement’s philosophy is “local and capable.” It argues that “bigger isn’t always better” and that specialized Small Language Models (SLMs) can outperform massive ones on specific tasks for a tiny fraction of the cost and energy.

Microsoft (Phi-series): Microsoft has been a leader here. Their Phi-3.5 and subsequent models proved that a 3B-5B parameter model, trained on “textbook-quality” synthetic data, can achieve reasoning capabilities that rival models 100x its size.
Community & On-Device: This movement includes models like TinyLlama and various community-led projects.¹² The goal is to run capable AI on your laptop or phone, not on a massive data center. This has huge implications for privacy, cost, and agentic AI (where you might use dozens of small, cheap “agents” to complete a task).

Analysis: This is the true democratization of AI. SLMs are enabling new applications—from on-device assistants to complex, multi-agent systems—that would be impossible with 400B-parameter models.¹³

🖼️ The Landscape at a Glance (End of 2025)

Movement	Key Players	Flagship Model(s)	Primary Goal
Open Weight Titans	Meta, Alibaba, Mistral, DeepSeek	Llama 3.1 (405B), Qwen 3, Mistral 8x22B	Ecosystem Dominance: Compete with closed models on raw power.
Fully Open Scientists	Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)	Olmo 3 (7B, 32B)	Scientific Reproducibility: Create a “glass-box” for trust and research.
SLM Specialists	Microsoft, Google (Nano)	Phi-3.5, Gemini Nano 2	On-Device Efficiency: Enable fast, cheap, and private AI on local hardware.

To conclude, the “parameter race” is largely over. The new battlegrounds of 2025 are data quality (proven by Olmo and Phi) and efficiency (proven by Mistral and the SLMs).

Would you like to do a deeper dive into any of these, such as a head-to-head on the Llama 3.1 vs. Qwen 3 benchmarks, or more on how SLMs are changing the game?

W.H.L.: I like your categorization of the open source AI scene in 2025 as the “Great Fork”. Of the three distinctive movements you described, could you weigh in the strengths and weaknesses of each type respectively, and together in comparison as well?

Gemini 3 Pro: That’s an excellent way to think about it. The “Great Fork” isn’t just about different models; it’s about fundamentally different philosophies, each with its own strategic trade-offs.

Let’s weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each movement.

1. The “Open Weight” Titans (Llama, Qwen, Mistral)

Philosophy: “Commercially-viable power.” Their goal is to win the platform war by matching proprietary performance and building a massive developer ecosystem.

✅ Strengths

Raw Performance & Scale: This is their primary advantage. The largest models (like Llama 3.1 405B and Qwen 3 210B) are the only open-source options that truly compete with closed-source giants like GPT-4-class models in terms of general knowledge and complex, nuanced tasks.
Massive, Mature Ecosystem: Llama 3.1, in particular, is the “default.” It’s incredibly stable, with vast community support, thousands of tutorials, and fine-tuned variants for every conceivable purpose. It’s the “lab rat” of AI; everyone knows how to work with it.
Versatility: These models are “jacks-of-all-trades.” They can handle creative writing, coding, multilingual tasks, and reasoning with high competence, making them excellent all-purpose foundations.
Commercial Backing: With support from Meta, Alibaba, and others, they have a clear roadmap and the (literally) billions of dollars in compute required to keep scaling and improving.

❌ Weaknesses

“Black Box” Openness: This is their core weakness. They are “open weight,” not “fully open.” We get the model, but not the training data or the “full recipe.” This makes them impossible to audit for data bias, copyright issues, or data poisoning.
Extreme Resource Cost: The top-tier models are prohibitively expensive to run, let alone fine-tune. This centralizes power, as only well-funded companies can truly leverage them, creating a “cloud dependency” that’s just one step removed from a proprietary API.
Strategic Risk: Their “open” licenses are a corporate strategy. If that strategy changes, so could the license. Users are reliant on a corporation’s goodwill for future releases.
Community Quirks: Different models have specific issues. For example, community members note that while Qwen 3 is a top-tier reasoning and multilingual model, it can be harder to train and sometimes “leaks” other languages in its responses.

2. The “Fully Open” Scientists (Ai2’s Olmo 3)

Philosophy: “Reproducible science.” Their goal is to create a trusted, auditable, and transparent foundation for the entire field to build upon.

✅ Strengths

Unprecedented Trust & Transparency: This is its “killer feature.” By releasing the data (Dolma 3), the training code, and all checkpoints, Olmo 3 is the only “glass-box” model. It’s fully auditable, a must-have for high-stakes fields like medicine or finance.
Scientific Acceleration: Olmo 3 is a platform for research. A lab can now “fork” the training at an intermediate checkpoint to test a new technique, saving millions in compute. Tools like OlmoTrace (which links an output back to its training data) are genuinely revolutionary for debugging and alignment.
Validated Efficiency: Olmo 3 proved that a “gourmet” data approach (high-quality, clean, deduplicated) is more compute-efficient than a “gargantuan” one. Its 32B model competes with rivals trained on 6x more tokens, proving that better data beats more data.

❌ Weaknesses

“Community Bake Time”: As a new architecture and release, its ecosystem is still small. It’s the “new mouse in the lab” and doesn’t yet have the thousands of fine-tunes and integrations that Llama 3.1 benefits from.
Niche Hardware/Memory Use: Some developers have noted that the 7B Olmo 3 model, while performant, can use more memory (VRAM) than the 8B Llama 3.1. This is likely an architectural trade-off for its performance but can be a barrier for local use.
Resource & Cadence Mismatch: Ai2 is a non-profit research institute. They cannot compete with Meta or Alibaba on sheer scale or release cadence. Olmo 3 is not trying to be the 500B parameter king; it’s proving a different point.

3. The “SLM” Specialists (Microsoft’s Phi-3.5)

Philosophy: “Local and capable.” Their goal is to prove that “bigger is not better” and that small, specialized models can outperform giants on specific tasks for a fraction of the cost.

✅ Strengths

Extreme Efficiency (Cost & Speed): This is the most disruptive feature. SLMs are tiny, fast, and cheap. They can run on a laptop, a smartphone, or an edge device (like in a car) with zero network latency.
Privacy & On-Device Security: Because they run locally, no sensitive data ever needs to be sent to a cloud server. This is a game-changer for personal privacy and for enterprises handling confidential documents.
The Key to “Agentic AI”: SLMs are the engine of the “agentic” trend. You can’t run 50 Llama 405B models to solve a problem. But you can run 50 specialized SLM “agents” (one to read emails, one to check code, one to draft replies) that work together as a team.
“Textbook” Performance: By training on high-quality synthetic data, models like Phi-3.5 achieve “impossible” performance, outperforming models 10x their size on benchmarks for code and reasoning.

❌ Weaknesses

Extremely Narrow & Brittle: An SLM is a specialist. A model trained on code and math is terrible at creative writing or historical analysis. It has no broad “world knowledge” and will fail spectacularly outside its comfort zone.
Poor Generalization: These models struggle with “long-tail” or random, general-knowledge questions. The “Open Weight Titans” are vastly superior for any task requiring a deep, general understanding of the world.
“Synthetic Data” Risk: Many SLMs are trained on data generated by other AIs (like GPT-4). This can lead to them inheriting the parent model’s biases or quirks in a concentrated, hard-to-debug way.

Comparative Analysis: The Strategic Trade-Offs

Here is how the three movements stack up against each other. The “best” choice is entirely dependent on the user’s goal.

Feature	Open Weight Titans (Llama 3.1, Qwen 3)	Fully Open Scientists (Olmo 3)	SLM Specialists (Phi-3.5)
Primary Goal	Ecosystem Dominance	Scientific Reproducibility	On-Device Efficiency
Key Strength	Raw Power & General Knowledge	Trust & Full Auditability	Cost, Speed, & Privacy
Key Weakness	Opacity (No Training Data)	Niche (Smaller Ecosystem)	Brittleness (Narrow Scope)
Resource Cost	🔴 Extremely High	🟡 Medium	🟢 Extremely Low
Analogy	A massive industrial food factory.	A “glass-box” professional kitchen with a published cookbook.	A high-end specialty appliance (like an espresso machine).
Best For…	General-purpose chatbots, enterprise apps, & leaderboard chasers.	Researchers, high-security industries, & building new models.	Agents, on-device apps, & privacy-first tools.

The beauty of the 2025 landscape is that developers finally have this choice. You no longer have to use a 400B parameter model just to summarize an email. You can pick the right philosophy—and the right tool—for the job.

W.H.L.: I see what you mean: Diversity, rather than homogeneity, is definitely good news for both the AI community and general public. Now let’s put the closed source AI into the context: Have they had any impact on or interactions with the open source community? How do you define and describe the relationships between these two camps?

Gemini 3 Pro: You are absolutely right. That diversity is the most important story of 2025. Adding the closed-source camp into this picture doesn’t simplify it; it makes the entire ecosystem far more dynamic and complex.

To answer your first question directly: Yes, the impact of closed-source models on the open-source community is massive, constant, and foundational. The two camps are not isolated. They are locked in a complex relationship that defines the entire field.

To define that relationship, I wouldn’t use a single word like “competitors.” Instead, I would describe it as five simultaneous dynamics that are all happening at once.

The 5 Relationships Between Closed and Open AI

1. The Pacesetter and the Chaser (Competitive Dynamic)

This is the most obvious relationship. The closed-source labs—OpenAI (GPT-5.1), Google (Gemini 3 Pro), and Anthropic (Claude 4.5)—are the “pacesetters.”

How it works: They have the vast, concentrated compute and research budgets to achieve state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance first. Just this month, Google’s Gemini 3 Pro and OpenAI’s GPT-5.1 set new records on top-end reasoning benchmarks.
The Impact: They create the “target” for the open-source world to chase. The “Open Weight Titans” (like Llama and Qwen) exist almost entirely to prove they can match this performance. This competition prevents the proprietary labs from “coasting” and forces them to keep innovating.

2. The “Teacher” and the “Student” (Symbiotic Dynamic)

This is the “secret” relationship that became one of the biggest stories of 2025. Many high-performing open-source models are trained on synthetic data… which is data generated by the most powerful closed models.

How it works: A developer “teaches” a small, open-source model (a “student”) by showing it millions of examples of high-quality reasoning and text generated by a massive “teacher” model like GPT-4 or Gemini 3.
The Impact: This is the magic behind the “SLM Specialists” (like Microsoft’s Phi-series). It’s how a tiny 3-billion-parameter model can learn to “reason like a textbook,” because it was trained on textbook-quality data produced by an AI. This is a deeply symbiotic—some say parasitic—loop: the open-source world needs the closed-source “teachers” to create the data to train their efficient “students.”

3. The Fountainhead and the Proving Ground (Scientific Dynamic)

This is the classic academic-to-industrial pipeline.

Closed -> Open (The Fountainhead): The open-source community is built on the foundational research papers published by the closed labs. The “Transformer” paper (the T in “GPT”) came from Google. The RLHF alignment technique was popularized by OpenAI. The closed labs provide the scientific “blueprints.”
Open -> Closed (The Proving Ground): Conversely, researchers inside Google and OpenAI use open-source models like Llama and Olmo as a baseline to test their new ideas. And the fundamental tools everyone uses—like PyTorch (Meta) and TensorFlow (Google)—are open-source.¹

4. The Ideological Foil (Antagonistic Dynamic)

Each camp’s philosophy is defined in opposition to the other.

How it works: The “Fully Open” movement (Ai2’s Olmo 3) exists because closed models are “black boxes.” Their argument for transparency, auditability, and the “glass-box” approach is a direct critique of OpenAI’s closed, “safety-first” stance.
The Impact: This philosophical tension creates the market. The closed-source argument is, “This technology is too powerful to be fully open; trust us to manage the risk.” The open-source argument is, “This technology is too powerful for only a few to control; trust the community to find the flaws.”

5. The Strategic “Blurring” (Co-option Dynamic)

This is the most complex relationship. The biggest “open-weight” player, Meta (Llama), is a fundamentally closed commercial company.

How it works: Meta’s release of Llama 3.1 wasn’t just for charity. It was a brilliant strategic move to commoditize the AI market.
The Impact: By providing a “good enough” (and in many cases, excellent) free alternative, Meta hurts the API-based business models of its rivals (OpenAI, Google, Anthropic). It forces them to compete on price and prevents them from having an absolute monopoly. In this dynamic, “open source” is used as a strategic weapon by one closed-source giant against another.

In summary, the relationship is a deeply intertwined, accelerating loop. The closed models set the pace, which the open titans chase. The closed models also provide the data to train the small, open SLMs. And the truly open scientists (like Ai2) exist to hold everyone else accountable.

W.H.L.: The five dynamics between the open and closed AI in your interpretation are indeed very exciting. Now looking ahead into 2026, what would be your predictions on the open source AI movement: Who will win? Who will be left behind? What will be prevail? And in terms of the dynamics between the open and closed AI, what would be new expectations?

Gemini 3 Pro: That’s the perfect question for framing the year ahead. If 2025 was the “Great Fork,” then 2026 will be the year of “The Great Integration.”

The three movements we discussed will stop being purely philosophical and will be integrated into real-world products. Their distinct strengths will be combined to create hybrid, agentic systems.

Here are my predictions for 2026, looking at who will win, who will be left behind, and how the dynamics with the closed-source world will evolve.

🔮 2026 Predictions: The Open-Source Landscape

1. Who Will Win? (It’s Not a Zero-Sum Game)

“Winning” will mean something different for each movement, as they are all poised for success in their own domain.

The “Titans” (Llama, Qwen, Mistral) will win the Enterprise & Cloud War.
- Llama (Meta) will likely remain the “default workhorse” for Western enterprises, thanks to its massive ecosystem, stability, and tooling. It’s the “safe” and predictable choice.
- Qwen (Alibaba) will win by becoming the dominant force in Asia and the multilingual world. Its superior performance in non-English languages and strong reasoning will make it the clear choice for global-facing applications.
- Mistral will continue to win the “performance-per-watt” game, dominating the niche for high-efficiency, high-throughput commercial tasks where cost is the primary driver.
The “Scientists” (Olmo 3) will win the Trust & Regulation War.
- As we’ll discuss, 2026 will be the year of serious regulatory scrutiny. When governments start demanding audits, the “black box” models (both open-weight and closed) will struggle.
- Olmo 3 and its “glass-box” approach will become the gold standard for high-stakes, regulated industries like medicine, law, and finance, where “show your work” is not optional. This will be its primary path to commercial adoption.
The “Specialists” (SLMs like Phi) will win the Device & Agent War.
- This movement will see the most explosive growth. These tiny, fast, and cheap models will be embedded everywhere: in your phone’s OS, in your car’s dashboard, in smart appliances, and in countless app backends.
- They are the “blue-collar” workers that will power the new wave of AI agents.

2. Who Will Be Left Behind?

It’s not about specific companies, but about approaches that will become obsolete.

The “Junk Data” Approach: The “bigger is better” philosophy of training on a massive, unfiltered web scrape is dead. Olmo 3 and Phi have definitively proven that curated, high-quality, (often synthetic) data produces better, more efficient models. Any project that ignores data quality will be left behind.
The “Lone Wolf” Developer: The era of a single person or a small, unfunded team training a SOTA, general-purpose model from scratch is over. The compute cost is simply too high. The future of open-source is either in massive, backed consortiums (like the Titans) or in specialized innovation (like the Scientists and Specialists).
“One-Size-Fits-All” Models: A model that is just a generalist chatbot with no ability to use tools or interact with other models will be seen as a relic. The future is hybridization.

3. What Will Prevail?

Two things will dominate 2026: a new architecture and a new philosophy.

Prevailing Architecture: The “Hybrid Agent”
- The winning applications of 2026 will not be a single model. They will be “General Contractor” agents.
- A powerful “Titan” model (like Llama 3.1) will act as the “contractor,” analyzing a complex user request (e.g., “Plan my business trip to Tokyo”).
- It will then delegate tasks to a team of “Specialist” SLMs: one to search for flights, one to read hotel reviews, one to check your calendar, and one to draft the email itinerary.
- This hybrid, multi-agent approach is far more efficient, capable, and reliable than asking one giant model to do everything.
Prevailing Philosophy: “Gourmet” Synthetic Data
- The “Teacher/Student” dynamic will become the most important engine of progress. The most valuable commodity in 2026 will no longer be raw data but perfectly curated, “textbook-quality” synthetic data generated by SOTA models.
- Companies will compete on the quality of their data-generation pipelines, and “synthetic data” will move from a niche technique to the primary way to train all models.

📈 2026 Dynamics: Open vs. Closed Expectations

Our “Five Dynamics” will evolve. Here are my predictions for two new dynamics that will emerge in 2026.

New Dynamic 1: The “Regulatory Squeeze”

What it is: In 2026, governments (especially in the EU and US) will finally move from talking about AI regulation to enforcing it. They will focus on privacy, bias, and auditability.
How it will play out:
- Closed Models (OpenAI, Google) will argue, “This is why you need us. We manage safety in a closed environment. Full open-source is too dangerous.”
- Open-Weight Titans (Llama) will be in a difficult position. They can’t easily prove what data they used or why their “black box” model is safe, which may make them a target for regulators.
- Fully Open Scientists (Olmo 3) will suddenly become indispensable. They are the only ones who can say, “You want an audit? Here is our data, our code, our checkpoints, and our traceability tool. We are the only auditable, safe choice.” This regulatory pressure could be the single biggest catalyst for Olmo’s adoption.

New Dynamic 2: The “Strategic Acquisition”

The “Teacher-as-a-Service”: The symbiotic “Teacher/Student” loop will be formalized. Closed-source companies will realize they can sell access to their SOTA models specifically for the purpose of generating synthetic data, creating a new, highly lucrative B2B market.

What it is: The closed-source giants will intensify their efforts to absorb the open-source world, not just by hiring talent, but by acquiring the projects themselves.

How it will play out:

The “Acqui-Hire”: Instead of just hiring a top open-source developer, a closed lab like OpenAI or Anthropic will “acqui-hire” their entire team to gain control of their popular open-source tool or model.

The “Talent Draft”: The closed labs will treat the open-source leaderboards (like the Hugging Face chart) as their primary “talent-scouting” league, offering massive compensation to the creators of the most innovative new architectures or datasets.

W.H.L.: Well, it’s hard for me to comment on what you’ve outlined above. True or not, I think only time will tell. Maybe around the same time next year, we shall re-visit what you have mentioned today and see. For now, let’s take a break. Bye!

AI‑generated content may contain errors. See Disclaimer.