4 ms·

What are you talking about "the brain" of the engineers, this is bonkers. Monocasa is being excruciatingly patient with you all but the fact is this was generat

What are you talking about "the brain" of the engineers, this is bonkers. Monocasa is being excruciatingly patient with you all but the fact is this was generated with tools and is not a source release, it's a final product or compiled or generated release.

jncfhnb 3y ago
It’s bonkers because Monocasa’s take is bonkers. Code generated with tools is still code. This code is the source. The output of the code is the output. Monocasa is failing to understand or perhaps intentionally not understanding the difference. In some contexts a “compiled release” implies an output that is largely immutable for practical purposes. That is not what this is. It’s technically a binary object, but it’s a binary object you can easily unpack to get executable code that you can read and edit. It is a convenient format different from classical text code. The fact that it’s a binary is completely irrelevant. It’s akin to arguing that code that is provided in a zip file cannot be open source. Both because it’s a compressed file and because it doesn’t include the compression algorithm. With that understood, demanding the “tools” that were used to create the code is like asking for the engineers’ notebooks of design thoughts along the way. It has no bearing on your ability to use or modify it. This is not an open source project to make neural nets. This an open source project of a neural net. If someone releases math_funcs.py, you don’t need anything about the tools that were used to create math_funcs.py to consider it open source.
- monocasa 3y ago
  Once again, what do Mistral's engineers edit to do their job? That's the source that when released would constitute 'opeb source'.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    So if you use tools that generate some boilerplate code as part of your project you need to include the boilerplate generator otherwise it’s not open source?
    - monocasa 3y ago
      The model weights aren't boilerplate.
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        It’s all code. Is your opinion now that open source repos have to include the tools to generate only the parts you personally deem important enough?
        camgunz 3y ago
        Why are you being so obtuse? No, devs don't have to include the source to vim in their repos. They have to include the source files for their product in their repos. I'm confident this just isn't that hard to understand.
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        These are the source files! I’m going to stop responding to monocasa because I think he is being obtuse and leading me to say things that you are misinterpreting. There is no expectation to include vim, or any tools required to create a codebase. We agree. And that’s why this repo is sufficient. Asking for the tooling that was used to make this project would be out of scope and unreasonable. This is a repo that can be used to make predictions. It is not a repo that is used to make models.
        camgunz 3y ago
        Well but you can see that you're a little downstream right? c++ source -> photoshop -> images source we're asking for -> the repo you're talking about -> predictions
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        The source code of the repo referred to by “open source” is the code of the repo. You can ask all you want but that is irrelevant as to whether it is open source. If photoshop were open source, the c++ code would need to be available. Not the tooling used to make the c++ code. The c++ code is equivalent to the model. Not the separate pythoj codebase that was involved in making it. Which is some BSD PyTorch + PyTorch calling code that anyone competent in the field can implement any number of ways and is not special to this output.

jncfhnb 3y ago

It’s bonkers because Monocasa’s take is bonkers. Code generated with tools is still code. This code is the source. The output of the code is the output. Monocasa is failing to understand or perhaps intentionally not understanding the difference. In some contexts a “compiled release” implies an output that is largely immutable for practical purposes. That is not what this is. It’s technically a binary object, but it’s a binary object you can easily unpack to get executable code that you can read and edit. It is a convenient format different from classical text code. The fact that it’s a binary is completely irrelevant. It’s akin to arguing that code that is provided in a zip file cannot be open source. Both because it’s a compressed file and because it doesn’t include the compression algorithm. With that understood, demanding the “tools” that were used to create the code is like asking for the engineers’ notebooks of design thoughts along the way. It has no bearing on your ability to use or modify it. This is not an open source project to make neural nets. This an open source project of a neural net. If someone releases math_funcs.py, you don’t need anything about the tools that were used to create math_funcs.py to consider it open source.

monocasa 3y ago
Once again, what do Mistral's engineers edit to do their job? That's the source that when released would constitute 'opeb source'.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  So if you use tools that generate some boilerplate code as part of your project you need to include the boilerplate generator otherwise it’s not open source?
  - monocasa 3y ago
    The model weights aren't boilerplate.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      It’s all code. Is your opinion now that open source repos have to include the tools to generate only the parts you personally deem important enough?
      - camgunz 3y ago
        Why are you being so obtuse? No, devs don't have to include the source to vim in their repos. They have to include the source files for their product in their repos. I'm confident this just isn't that hard to understand.
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        These are the source files! I’m going to stop responding to monocasa because I think he is being obtuse and leading me to say things that you are misinterpreting. There is no expectation to include vim, or any tools required to create a codebase. We agree. And that’s why this repo is sufficient. Asking for the tooling that was used to make this project would be out of scope and unreasonable. This is a repo that can be used to make predictions. It is not a repo that is used to make models.
        camgunz 3y ago
        Well but you can see that you're a little downstream right? c++ source -> photoshop -> images source we're asking for -> the repo you're talking about -> predictions
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        The source code of the repo referred to by “open source” is the code of the repo. You can ask all you want but that is irrelevant as to whether it is open source. If photoshop were open source, the c++ code would need to be available. Not the tooling used to make the c++ code. The c++ code is equivalent to the model. Not the separate pythoj codebase that was involved in making it. Which is some BSD PyTorch + PyTorch calling code that anyone competent in the field can implement any number of ways and is not special to this output.