new | show | ask | jobs Github

m4rtink 5 hours ago

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 35 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.