3 ms·
Getting the results is nice but that's "shareware" not "free software" (or, for a more modern example, that is like companies submitting firmware binary blobs i
by Ericson2314 3y ago
Getting the results is nice but that's "shareware" not "free software" (or, for a more modern example, that is like companies submitting firmware binary blobs into mainline Linux).
Free software means you have to be able to build the final binary from source. Having 10 TB of text is no problem, but having a data center of GPUs is. Until the training cost comes down there is no way to make it free software.
- l33t7332273 3y agoIf I publish a massive quantity of source code — to the point that it’s very expensive to compile — it’s still open source. If the training data and model training code is available then it should be considered open, even if it’s hard to train.
- Ericson2314 3y agoIf it was only feasible for a giant corporation to compile the code, I would consider it less than open source.
- nextaccountic 3y ago> the training data This will never be fully open
- l33t7332273 3y agoMaybe not for some closed models. That doesn’t mean truly open models can’t exist.
- earthnail 3y agoI doubt you’d say that if one run of compiling the code would cost you $400M.
- PeterisP 3y agoFree software means that you have the ability - both legal and practical - to customize the tool for your needs. For software, that means you have to be able to build the final binary from source (so you can adapt the source and rebuild), for ML models that means you need the code and the model weights, which does allow you to fine-tune that model and adapt it to different purposes even without spending the compute cost for a full re-train.