3 ms·

We don't have to play dumb. Everyone in this thread knows exactly what the article means, when it says that Llama was open sourced. This obviously means that

by stale2002 3y ago

We don't have to play dumb. Everyone in this thread knows exactly what the article means, when it says that Llama was open sourced. This obviously means that the weights were released, and everyone knows this, regardless of any pedantic definition of what "open source" means.

seba_dos1 3y ago
Calling Llama 2 "open source" is obviously a misleading marketing tactic to capitalize on positive connotations of the term, while in reality it's nowhere even close to being open source. This has nothing to do with any kind of pedantry, "open source" is a specific term with specific meaning, and "releasing the weights" is completely orthogonal to it being open source or not.
- andy99 3y ago
  A challenge here is that it is pedantic, even if it's true. I've been very vocal about how the LLaMAs as well as other models like those released under RAIL licenses are not open source. But the truth is very few people care and attitudes like the one above are common. What needs to happen is for a strong, and I'd suggest copyleft, alternative to emerge that's good enough to make people have to care more about license terms. That plus continued advocacy in the face of people dismissing pedantic distinctions as irrelevant.
  - nomel 3y ago
    > and I'd suggest copyleft, alternative to emerge that's good enough to make people have to care more about license terms I keep seeing this, but I can't understand how it would work. Bored nerds will volunteer their time to open source, with little return. That's why I did it. Generally, nobody will volunteer their money to open source. This is unfortunate, and a huge problem. Training neural nets requires the money. Where does it come from?
    - andy99 3y ago
      I'm not saying it's a solved problem though there are already initiatives like AI Horde that are doing volunteer distributed inference (it it looks like now fine-tuning) on GPUs https://stablehorde.net/ https://stablehorde.net/ Plus it can be a strategic choice for institutions and companies, just like Linux is for example.
    - gtirloni 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-funded_crowdfunding_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-funded_crowdfu...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - serf 3y ago
    >A challenge here is that it is pedantic, even if it's true. it's not pedantry unless it's a minor detail, and given that the entire license behind llama has next to nothing to do with the open source model or existing open source licensing, this isn't a minor detail. the court-room doesn't care if 'few people care'. it's obvious to anyone that has been to a CS convention in the past 20 years that the whole open-source thing from large corporations is used to leverage good-will to recruit useful labor and to collect community 'altruism-points' so that they can make shadier decisions later on and hopefully trap a captive audience, not to follow the ethical ideals of open-source but to enhance their bottom-line. 'Trojan-horse open-source'.
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > the court-room doesn't care Not sure if you were aware, but nobody is in court right now. >it's not pedantry unless it's a minor detail It is minor though. The license allows almost everyone to use it, excluding literally like Apple and Google, and for a few other unenforceable use cases. Everyone else is in the clear.
pengaru 3y ago
> We don't have to play dumb. Everyone in this thread knows exactly what the article means, when it says that Llama was open sourced. > > This obviously means that the weights were released, and everyone knows this, regardless of any pedantic definition of what "open source" means. It's no surprise you're disinterested in the meaning of "open source" given how much you misuse "everyone".
- stale2002 3y ago
  And it is no surprise that someone who cares only about pedantry will fail to address the argument, and instead go off on an irrelevant tangent. But feel free to reread the original comment and actually talk about the substance of the claim, instead of doing the normal "Well actually" hacker news comment.
  - seba_dos1 3y ago
    Objecting to a notion that black is white is hardly a "well actually" pedantry. We're talking about the whole essence of the meaning of the term, not about some minor details in its definition. I'd rather say: everyone who actually checked the license knows that it's obviously not open source in any way.
    - stale2002 3y ago
      So then yes, you agree that everyone knows that the weights were released. Which is the point. No need to play dumb. You are not confused about what was released.
      - seba_dos1 3y ago
        Please read what you're typing before hitting send and stop wasting our time.
        stale2002 3y ago
        Hey, as long as you admit that you are aware that the weights were released, and that is what the announcement meant, then you agree with me! So great! You are not confused at all, and are aware that the announcement meant that the weights were released!
_emacsomancer_ 3y ago
Given legal implications, 'pedantic' is a rather inaccurate descriptor.

seba_dos1 3y ago

Calling Llama 2 "open source" is obviously a misleading marketing tactic to capitalize on positive connotations of the term, while in reality it's nowhere even close to being open source. This has nothing to do with any kind of pedantry, "open source" is a specific term with specific meaning, and "releasing the weights" is completely orthogonal to it being open source or not.

andy99 3y ago
A challenge here is that it is pedantic, even if it's true. I've been very vocal about how the LLaMAs as well as other models like those released under RAIL licenses are not open source. But the truth is very few people care and attitudes like the one above are common. What needs to happen is for a strong, and I'd suggest copyleft, alternative to emerge that's good enough to make people have to care more about license terms. That plus continued advocacy in the face of people dismissing pedantic distinctions as irrelevant.
- nomel 3y ago
  > and I'd suggest copyleft, alternative to emerge that's good enough to make people have to care more about license terms I keep seeing this, but I can't understand how it would work. Bored nerds will volunteer their time to open source, with little return. That's why I did it. Generally, nobody will volunteer their money to open source. This is unfortunate, and a huge problem. Training neural nets requires the money. Where does it come from?
  - andy99 3y ago
    I'm not saying it's a solved problem though there are already initiatives like AI Horde that are doing volunteer distributed inference (it it looks like now fine-tuning) on GPUs https://stablehorde.net/ https://stablehorde.net/ Plus it can be a strategic choice for institutions and companies, just like Linux is for example.
  - gtirloni 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-funded_crowdfunding_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-funded_crowdfu...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- serf 3y ago
  >A challenge here is that it is pedantic, even if it's true. it's not pedantry unless it's a minor detail, and given that the entire license behind llama has next to nothing to do with the open source model or existing open source licensing, this isn't a minor detail. the court-room doesn't care if 'few people care'. it's obvious to anyone that has been to a CS convention in the past 20 years that the whole open-source thing from large corporations is used to leverage good-will to recruit useful labor and to collect community 'altruism-points' so that they can make shadier decisions later on and hopefully trap a captive audience, not to follow the ethical ideals of open-source but to enhance their bottom-line. 'Trojan-horse open-source'.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > the court-room doesn't care Not sure if you were aware, but nobody is in court right now. >it's not pedantry unless it's a minor detail It is minor though. The license allows almost everyone to use it, excluding literally like Apple and Google, and for a few other unenforceable use cases. Everyone else is in the clear.

pengaru 3y ago

> We don't have to play dumb. Everyone in this thread knows exactly what the article means, when it says that Llama was open sourced. > > This obviously means that the weights were released, and everyone knows this, regardless of any pedantic definition of what "open source" means. It's no surprise you're disinterested in the meaning of "open source" given how much you misuse "everyone".

stale2002 3y ago
And it is no surprise that someone who cares only about pedantry will fail to address the argument, and instead go off on an irrelevant tangent. But feel free to reread the original comment and actually talk about the substance of the claim, instead of doing the normal "Well actually" hacker news comment.
- seba_dos1 3y ago
  Objecting to a notion that black is white is hardly a "well actually" pedantry. We're talking about the whole essence of the meaning of the term, not about some minor details in its definition. I'd rather say: everyone who actually checked the license knows that it's obviously not open source in any way.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    So then yes, you agree that everyone knows that the weights were released. Which is the point. No need to play dumb. You are not confused about what was released.
    - seba_dos1 3y ago
      Please read what you're typing before hitting send and stop wasting our time.
      - stale2002 3y ago
        Hey, as long as you admit that you are aware that the weights were released, and that is what the announcement meant, then you agree with me! So great! You are not confused at all, and are aware that the announcement meant that the weights were released!

_emacsomancer_ 3y ago

Given legal implications, 'pedantic' is a rather inaccurate descriptor.