I've seen this scenario too many times: a development team spends months fine-tuning an "all-knowing, all-powerful" AI model, only to launch it and find there are more bugs than features. Want a single model to write code, analyze data, and handle user inquiries? Sounds great in theory, but in practice it’s a disaster.



The DeFAI space is pretty lively right now, with everyone trying to build the "strongest AI." But there’s one team taking a different approach—instead of exhausting one model by making it do everything poorly, they’re assembling a squad of specialized AI models. Each model focuses on doing one thing well, and together they can solve more complex problems.

This approach is actually pretty smart. Just like you wouldn’t expect a general practitioner to perform heart surgery and fix your teeth, AI models are the same—specialized tasks require specialized "people."
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 6
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
SilentObservervip
· 8h ago
Honestly, trying to have one model handle everything is a recipe for disaster. I've seen too many projects crash and burn right after launch.
View OriginalReply0
LadderToolGuyvip
· 14h ago
This is the right answer. The idea of using one model package for everything is just setting yourself up for failure. --- Yet another bunch of projects trying to build an all-in-one AI—it's all going to crash and burn in the end. --- The professional division of labor approach is definitely reliable, but the key is still execution... --- I've seen enough of the outcomes of all-in-one models. It's really time to wise up. --- Hey, you're right, but whether the market will buy it is another question. --- Building a team is better than working solo, I agree with that, but the costs will skyrocket. --- Finally, someone said it. I've always thought that greed leads to overreaching. --- Wait, isn't this approach repeating what some previous projects did? --- The division of labor model is correct, but it depends on who can really nail the coordination.
View OriginalReply0
ShibaMillionairen'tvip
· 12-05 10:51
Haha, it's true. A bunch of projects want to build an all-in-one model, but end up being mediocre at everything. I think this division of labor model is more reliable; professional matters should be handled by professional teams. The DeFAI track is basically a high-stakes gamble right now, and only a few will survive.
View OriginalReply0
RugPullProphetvip
· 12-05 10:43
Haha, finally someone said it. Claiming that one model can solve all problems is just nonsense.
View OriginalReply0
GasDevourervip
· 12-05 10:40
Haha, that's the charm of division of labor. If a single model greedily tries to do everything, it ends up being mediocre at everything. It's better to have several specialists each doing their own job well.
View OriginalReply0
HashBrowniesvip
· 12-05 10:37
If one model tries to do everything, it ends up failing at everything—I’ve been tired of seeing that for a long time. Team-based approaches are more reliable, with everyone playing their own role.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)