3 ms·
The license is kind of irrelevant because its ML stuff that is impossible to retrain from the source data, because what that source data is, is a trade secret a
by pabs3 3y ago
The license is kind of irrelevant because its ML stuff that is impossible to retrain from the source data, because what that source data is, is a trade secret and even if it were publicly known, probably not under a FOSS license. The Debian Deep Learning Team's Machine Learning policy calls this sort of thing a "Toxic Candy" project.
https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy/ https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy/
Of course people rarely need to retrain from scratch, but with some of the attacks on ML systems out there, that is an essential thing to be able to do if you can afford or crowdfund it.
- trwllm 3y agoSaying that ml models aren't open source because you don't have the data is like saying doom isn't open source because you didn't provide a proof the fast inverse square root works: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root LLMs are just very large magic numbers. That's all there is to them.
- pabs3 3y agoHalf of open source is licensing, the other half is source code (or data). It isn't open source without both of them.