I think we should stop calling this type of models open source. They are indeed "open weight." The training code is proprietary and never revealed.

https://github.com/microsoft/VibeVoice/issues/102

▲

jcmfernandes 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Indeed. We now live in a world where freeware is named open source. We are very sorry, Stallman.

	▲	MarsIronPI 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		If you're going to apologize to Stallman, you should apologize for conflating open source with software freedom. ;D

▲

simonw 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm reserving that complaint for "open source" models which are released under non-open-source licenses.

I care that I know what I can DO with the project when I see it described as "open source".

	▲	yjftsjthsd-h 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> I care that I know what I can DO with the project when I see it described as "open source". Yes, the first of which is that you should be able to build it from source. Which requires the source code, and in this case data.
	▲	data-ottawa 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That would be “permissive license” Maybe we should have a little cue card for models: vendor/name, size, open weights, open source, permissive license. It’s simple enough an idea.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> we should stop calling this type of model open source. They are indeed "open weight”

This ship has sailed. It’s now in the same category as hacker/cracker and the pronunciation of GIF.

	▲	andy_ppp 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think you mean GIF.
	▲	engeljohnb 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The inventor of GIF didn't begin with a document* clearly laying out what is and isn't to be called a "GIF." I think it's right to push back whenever a huge tech corporation tries to build goodwill by falsely using terms like "open source." *https://opensource.org/osd
	▲	giancarlostoro 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It's the same as GIS, you wouldn't say jizz now would you?
	▲	WarmWash 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		And "hallucination" which should have been "delusion". Way early on (spring 2023) people tried to stop it, but no luck.

▲

WhyNotHugo 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Devils advocate here: I can give you a binary of my open source MIT code and never phone you the code. The code is still MIT licensed, and open source. You just have no access to it.

That said, I entirely agree that MS is misrepresenting their openness here, which isn’t in the least surprising.

	▲	Otek 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		? Do you know what “source” means in open source? Like, what is the source of the binary? It’s the code. That’s the source in open source.
	▲	freedomben 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		In their defense, most everyone else does the same thing. They still shouldn't do it, but at least they're not the trendsetter here (though they are contributing to the ongoing problem)

▲

btown 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At least it's MIT licensed! As much as non-open training data irks me, restrictive licensing irks me more!

	▲	cute_boi 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		what is problem with restrictive licensing? Most of them starts if you have 1M users etc?

▲

bitvvip 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What you said makes a lot of sense. Free software should not be confused with open source

▲

giancarlostoro 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean, you have "AI" which means just about anything in marketing speak, "Agentic" is kind of becoming similar, hopefully they don't goof that one too badly, would be nice to know what you are trying to sell me. Used to be "Cloud" meant storage not just hosting (I guess it still does).

Then there's "Smart" in front of Car, Phone, TV, and so on... Meaning different things.

I do think "Open Weight" should be more commonly used. There's definitely communities that spring up that build the training infrastructure and inference infrastructure around open models on the other hand.

▲

scotty79 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Open weights is not exactly right either because we do get source of the software that uses those open weights.

Maybe open inference?

But we often also get source code for fine tunning the model.

So maybe it's closer to open source than to anything else?

Isn't it a bit like not calling a game open source because engine tooling used to made it isn't open source and they didn't publish .psd files with asset designs?

▲

jrm4 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm genuinely torn on this one; I get technically why not, but why I think I have no problem with it is the wishy-washiness of "open source" generally.

As I teach this stuff to people newer to this tech, it's probably just easier and more helpful to refer to the wide array of "stuff you can just download and use yourself" as "open-source" and then after that, go deeper and talk about why Stallman was right, how "Free Software" was first. etc.

▲

ilqr_jb 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

notabotiswear 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Openwashing is the new greenwashing, which, coincidently, seems to have gone out of fashion a few hundred datacentres ago.

	▲	dist-epoch 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		it was replaced with abundancewashing