4 ms·
> including the open-source models by Meta "open-source"
by __loam 3y ago
> including the open-source models by Meta
"open-source"
- Raed667 3y agoInfinitely more open than the ones from "Open"-Ai
- capableweb 3y agoI don't think Open Source is a gradient, it's a boolean. Either something is Open Source or it's not. Neither Llama nor OpenAI is Open Source.
- Terr_ 3y agoI disagree, it's functionally a gradient because the label encompasses different assumptions when different people say it. (It's even more vague than the US' "freedom of speech", since it lacks a bunch of case-law precedent.) You're saying clear-cut objective lines exist--where exactly do you believe they are placed?
- capableweb 3y agoNot saying this is the "objective truth", but the OSD does a good job of helping you find a clear-cut line when something is "Open Source" (in common parlor) or not: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ Again, not everyone agrees with those of course, and I guess that's fine. But I think most software developers who are in the FOSS ecosystem could agree that Llama is not "Open Source" as most people understand the term.
- l33t233372 3y agoFreely readable and mutable weights doesn’t have the same ring to it.
- classified 3y agoGod forbid we could be accurate with the terms we use.
- ronsor 3y ago"Open access"?