3 ms·
No, patching binaries is not really similar at all, because it's viewed as an inferior method to having the source code and modifying that. With these large mo
by epistasis 3y ago
No, patching binaries is not really similar at all, because it's viewed as an inferior method to having the source code and modifying that.
With these large models, the weights really are quite useful objects in themselves, the very starting points of future modifications, and importantly the desired points of modifications
Practioners in the field call these models "open source" and write open source software to run them and use them to power open source software.
- monocasa 3y ago> No, patching binaries is not really similar at all, because it's viewed as an inferior method to having the source code and modifying that. > With these large models, the weights really are quite useful objects in themselves, the very starting points of future modifications, and importantly the desired points of modifications For fine tuning. You go back to the training pipeline to make major changes. > Practioners in the field call these models "open source" Some do. In contrast to the accepted definitions of open source. > and write open source software to run them and use them to power open source software. There's plenty of open source code to run closed source binaries.