4 ms·

Yes to llama.cpp https://twitter.com/ggerganov/status/1760293079313973408 https://twitter.com/ggerganov/status/1760293079313973408

by ErneX 3y ago

sbarre 3y ago
I came here wondering if these models are "open" in the sense that they'll show up on sites like Ollama where you can download and run them locally. Am I correct to conclude that this means they eventually will? It's unclear to me from Google's docs exactly what "open" means for Gemma
- benpacker 3y ago
  Yes - they are open weights and open inference code, which means they can be integrated into Ollama. They are not “open training” (either in the training code or training data sense), so they are not reproducible, which some have suggested ought to be a component of the definition of open models.
  - OJFord 3y ago
    It really should shouldn't it? I'm quite ML-naïve, but surely providing the model without 'training code or training data' is just like providing a self-hostable binary without the source code? Nobody calls that open source, it's not even source available.
    - sunnybeetroot 3y ago
      That’s why they’re called open as in free to use how you wish, not open source where the source of the training is also provided.
      - OJFord 3y ago
        But my point is there's no analogy for that that we call open? It's like self-hostable, or free (as in beer).
        sunnybeetroot 3y ago
        That’s a fair comment, maybe free-to-use is more appropriate.
    - idiotsecant 3y ago
      Man, people will find anything to complain about.
      - OJFord 3y ago
        I'm not complaining, I'm unlikely ever to use it (regardless of how open or not it is) so it doesn't really matter to me, just surprised to learn what people mean by 'open' in this context.
    - michaelt 3y ago
      It is widely believed (and in some cases acknowledged) that a lot of models are trained on copyrighted data scraped from the web. In some cases, even scrapes of ebook piracy websites - google 'books3' to learn more. Some companies (such as those working on AI) believe this is legal, others (such as the copyright holders to those books) believe it isn't. In any case, IMHO it's unlikely any cutting edge models will be offering us their training data any time soon.
      - sanroot99 3y ago
        Can training data be generated from llm,with right prompt?
    - etiam 3y ago
      Yes, and there has been some discussion of that Meta’s LLaMa 2 license is not Open Source https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36820122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36820122
- SushiHippie 3y ago
  https://huggingface.co/google/gemma-7b-it/tree/main https://huggingface.co/google/gemma-7b-it/tree/main yes, similar to the llama models, you'll also need to accept the license to download them officially. But the llama models have been unofficially downloadable without accepting the license for quite a while, so it's probably just a matter of time.

Yes to llama.cpp https://twitter.com/ggerganov/status/1760293079313973408 https://twitter.com/ggerganov/status/1760293079313973408

by ErneX 3y ago

Yes to llama.cpp https://twitter.com/ggerganov/status/1760293079313973408 https://twitter.com/ggerganov/status/1760293079313973408

sbarre 3y ago

I came here wondering if these models are "open" in the sense that they'll show up on sites like Ollama where you can download and run them locally. Am I correct to conclude that this means they eventually will? It's unclear to me from Google's docs exactly what "open" means for Gemma

benpacker 3y ago
Yes - they are open weights and open inference code, which means they can be integrated into Ollama. They are not “open training” (either in the training code or training data sense), so they are not reproducible, which some have suggested ought to be a component of the definition of open models.
- OJFord 3y ago
  It really should shouldn't it? I'm quite ML-naïve, but surely providing the model without 'training code or training data' is just like providing a self-hostable binary without the source code? Nobody calls that open source, it's not even source available.
  - sunnybeetroot 3y ago
    That’s why they’re called open as in free to use how you wish, not open source where the source of the training is also provided.
    - OJFord 3y ago
      But my point is there's no analogy for that that we call open? It's like self-hostable, or free (as in beer).
      - sunnybeetroot 3y ago
        That’s a fair comment, maybe free-to-use is more appropriate.
  - idiotsecant 3y ago
    Man, people will find anything to complain about.
    - OJFord 3y ago
      I'm not complaining, I'm unlikely ever to use it (regardless of how open or not it is) so it doesn't really matter to me, just surprised to learn what people mean by 'open' in this context.
  - michaelt 3y ago
    It is widely believed (and in some cases acknowledged) that a lot of models are trained on copyrighted data scraped from the web. In some cases, even scrapes of ebook piracy websites - google 'books3' to learn more. Some companies (such as those working on AI) believe this is legal, others (such as the copyright holders to those books) believe it isn't. In any case, IMHO it's unlikely any cutting edge models will be offering us their training data any time soon.
    - sanroot99 3y ago
      Can training data be generated from llm,with right prompt?
  - etiam 3y ago
    Yes, and there has been some discussion of that Meta’s LLaMa 2 license is not Open Source https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36820122 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36820122
SushiHippie 3y ago
https://huggingface.co/google/gemma-7b-it/tree/main https://huggingface.co/google/gemma-7b-it/tree/main yes, similar to the llama models, you'll also need to accept the license to download them officially. But the llama models have been unofficially downloadable without accepting the license for quite a while, so it's probably just a matter of time.