3 ms·

> You demonstrably don't understand what open source means, which is basically my point, that people like Lecun have been trying to corrupt the meaning to be eq

> You demonstrably don't understand what open source means, which is basically my point, that people like Lecun have been trying to corrupt the meaning to be equivalent to "source available". You demonstrably don’t understand what it means to open source an AI model. The code is not relevant at all, the same code will not produce the same model weights, it is not deterministic. Also you will need millions of dollars to retrain, retraining is not the goal. The model weights are the source that was opened.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> The model weights are the source that was opened. Model weights are not "the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program" but more like "the output of a preprocessor or translator" [0], and thus are not "source code", but viewed as code, are more like object code. The training data, training configuration, and program source for the training routines are "source code", without which the model as a whole is not truly open source, just as much as the program source for the inference routines are. [0] for the relevance of the quoted material to whether or not your description meets the Open Source Definition, see the definition itself: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
- jph00 3y ago
  I think the model weights are the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. We modify models by fine-tuning them, which requires the weights, but not the training data/recipe.
squeaky-clean 3y ago
I think you're misunderstanding their point and mixing it up with other commenters. They are saying everything is available, but there are license restrictions on how you can use it. They're not asking for more code or data. It's source available, but it's not "open source" in the historical usage by programmers. Microsoft could not take their model weights and use it. It's not open source.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> The model weights are the source that was opened. Model weights are not "the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program" but more like "the output of a preprocessor or translator" [0], and thus are not "source code", but viewed as code, are more like object code. The training data, training configuration, and program source for the training routines are "source code", without which the model as a whole is not truly open source, just as much as the program source for the inference routines are. [0] for the relevance of the quoted material to whether or not your description meets the Open Source Definition, see the definition itself: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/

jph00 3y ago
I think the model weights are the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. We modify models by fine-tuning them, which requires the weights, but not the training data/recipe.

squeaky-clean 3y ago

I think you're misunderstanding their point and mixing it up with other commenters. They are saying everything is available, but there are license restrictions on how you can use it. They're not asking for more code or data. It's source available, but it's not "open source" in the historical usage by programmers. Microsoft could not take their model weights and use it. It's not open source.