I suspect a lot of people like me are feeling quite a bit "nerd sniped" while trying to read the paper. I am just suggesting open-weights are more fit term than

I suspect a lot of people like me are feeling quite a bit "nerd sniped" while trying to read the paper. I am just suggesting open-weights are more fit term than the open source term I saw when trying to read the paper, I was not talking about EXACT reproducible builds, which I agree are probably a stretch with current tech (but obviously not impossible with new tech but possibly slower and not obviously needed anyway). I also know about OpenLLaMA and others but that's not Meta's work, and it's not the work in the paper. I'm pretty sure a lot of the core principles Llama uses are drawn from OpenAI's published research but I agree that there is a lack of openness recently, e.g people having to speculate about even core things like how they presumably use mixture of experts, but "open source" is not the right term for them just because OpenAI is not being open right now. I agree mostly that the model itself is somewhat open but I really think we should consider "open weights" as a much better term, I think it's much more reasonable than saying open source.