I absolutely want that to be available.

The only way to make sure that a model was trained without hiding weird biases and backdoors is to monitor this process. It also allows anybody (with the hardware resources) to experiment with the model and how it's trained. Will most people want to do that? No, but most people also don't want to recompile their own kernel, that doesn't negate the value of Linux being FOSS.

I hope that, in the long term, I'll be able to use competitive, completely open models in the same way that I can run Linux on my computer.

You're completely right that the licensing of the training data is a big issue though (and I would argue that it should be a much bigger issue right now, even for closed models). I hope that eventually our understanding of the tech will let us build competitive LLMs using purely public domain/Creative Commons-style training data.

I realize that we have a long way to go... but that's a very worthwhile goal IMO.

I don't usually compile my kernel from scratch, but I'm very glad that the source is open.

How else do you want to reproduce a model if you don't have the training data?

> And wouldn't making that "open source" violate every license that the original data has? You can't release someone else's work.

Tangent, and not the person you're replying to, but you just independently re-discovered why so many of us despise the AI companies.

Because that's what they are already doing. Selling a repackaged form of the stolen work of all of humanity, without credit or payment.

You can read and edit binary code just fine, it's much easier with AI too

Indeed.

You can hardly re-create the binary from a suitable source, just like the weights just fell from the sky. But you can change the binary (patch the machine code) just like you can adjust the weights. The comparison is quite apt.

Yes?

The whole reverse engineering and cracking scene is built upon this premise, you know.