| ▲ | deepdarkforest 5 hours ago |
| The funny thing is that Anthropic is the only lab without an open source model |
|
| ▲ | jack_pp 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| And you believe the other open source models are a signal for ethics? Don't have a dog in this fight, haven't done enough research to proclaim any LLM provider as ethical but I pretty much know the reason Meta has an open source model isn't because they're good guys. |
| |
| ▲ | bigyabai 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Don't have a dog in this fight, That's probably why you don't get it, then. Facebook was the primary contributor behind Pytorch, which basically set the stage for early GPT implementations. For all the issues you might have with Meta's social media, Facebook AI Research Labs have an excellent reputation in the industry and contributed greatly to where we are now. Same goes for Google Brain/DeepMind despite their Google's advertisement monopoly; things aren't ethically black-and-white. | | |
| ▲ | jack_pp 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | A hired assassin can have an excellent reputation too. What does that have to do with ethics? Say I'm your neighbor and I make a move on your wife, your wife tells you this. Now I'm hosting a BBQ which is free for all to come, everyone in the neighborhood cheers for me. A neighbor praises me for helping him fix his car. Someone asks you if you're coming to the BBQ, you say to him nah.. you don't like me. They go, 'WHAT? jack_pp? He rescues dogs and helped fix my roof! How can you not like him?' | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Hired assassins aren't a monoculture. Maybe a retired gangster visits Make-A-Wish kids, and has an excellent reputation for it. Maybe another is training FOSS SOTA LLMs and releasing them freely on the internet. Do they not deserve an excellent reputation? Are they prevented from making ethically sound choices because of how you judge their past? The same applies to tech. Pytorch didn't have to be FOSS, nor Tensorflow. In that timeline CUDA might have a total monopoly on consumer inference. Out of all the myriad ways that AI could have been developed and proliferated, we are very lucky that it happened in a public friendly rivalry between two useless companies with money to burn. The ethical consequences of AI being monopolized by a proprietary prison warden like Nvidia or Apple is comparatively apocalyptic. |
|
| |
| ▲ | imiric 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The strongest signal for ethics is whether the product or company has "open" in its name. |
|
|
| ▲ | m4rtink 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Can those be even called open source if you can't rebuild if from the source yourself? |
| |
| ▲ | argee 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Even if you can rebuild it, it isn’t necessarily “open source” (see: commons clause). As far as these model releases, I believe the term is “open weights”. | |
| ▲ | anonym29 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Open weights fulfill a lot of functional the properties of open source, even if not all of them. Consider the classic CIA triad - confidentiality, integrity, and availability. You can achieve all of these to a much greater degree with locally-run open weight models than you can with cloud inference providers. We may not have the full logic introspection capabilities, the ease of modification (though you can still do some, like fine-tuning), and reproducibility that full source code offers, but open weight models bear more than a passing resemblance to the spirit of open source, even though they're not completely true to form. | | |
| ▲ | m4rtink 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Fair enough but I still prefer people would be more concrete and really call it "open weight" or similar. With fully open source software (say under GPL3), you can theoretically change anything & you are also quite sure about the provenience of the thing. With an open weights model you can run it, that is good - but the amount of stuff you can change is limited. It is also a big black box that could possibly hide some surprises from who ever created it that could be possibly triggered later by input. And lastly, you don't really know what the open weight model was trained on, which can again reflect on its output, not to mention potential liabilities later on if the authors were really care free about their training set. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | colordrops 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Are any of the models they've released useful or threats to their main models? |
| |
|
| ▲ | j45 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| They are, at the same time I considered their model more specialized than everyone trying to make a general purpose model. I would only use it for certain things, and I guess others are finding that useful too. |
