4 ms·

Another AI model pretending to be open source, when it's licence violates point 5 and 6 of the open source definition.

• villgax 3y ago
  Exactly- You will not use the Llama Materials or any output or results of the Llama Materials to improve any other large language model (excluding Llama 2 or derivative works thereof).
  • ilaksh 3y ago
    Ok but that means that theoretically you could actually use Llama 2 to create fine tuning data for Llama 2 right?
    • villgax 3y ago
      Yeah you could do that, I'm just baffled that these guys think they'll be able to monitor something like this being used to augment anything for that matter
• forrestthewoods 3y ago
  I genuinely have no idea what N-Point definition of open source you’re using. The term “open source” doesn’t have a singular definition. I liked the comment somewhere in this thread that if you stuck 5 HN users in a room you’d get 12 definitions for open source. Sounds like people need to come with more precise terms like “GNU Open Source” or similar. Because at this point we’ve gone too far and there will never be a singular definition for “open source”.
  • frabcus 3y ago
    This was a huge thing in the 1990s - yes there is a singular definition, by the Open Source Initiative https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/ That's a good thing, because otherwise corporations constantly try to stretch the definition and make it meaningless. Same then, same now!
    • forrestthewoods 3y ago
      OSI has done a poor job in their mission because they’ve failed to define the spectrum of projects between “personal definition or open source” and “fully closed source”. And now everyone is using the term open source in a manner they did not sanction. Because their definition is not particularly relevant.