4 ms·

Today's open source models beat closed source models from 1.5 years ago

60 points by ushakov 2y ago

andy99 2y ago
(On MMLU) Tangentially related, I just posted something about all the weights available models trying to beat GPT https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40024925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40024925
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
These are not really open source models. They are open weight, which is like sharing an executable instead of the actual source code. You don’t have the things you need to reproduce the model weights. What’s actually needed for these to be open source is the training source code, the training data sets, any applicable pre- or post- processing code, evaluation code, etc. Although training the actual model is not feasible for people without the funds and hardware, having those things would at least allow the model to be auditable. Otherwise, we really have no idea what these open weight models are doing. They could be biasing themselves in various ways that are invisible but damaging. Another thing to watch out for is licensing. Only a few models use an actual open source license from OSI (like Apache). Many are using proprietary licenses that reference external terms that can change over time, or limit how you use their model. These restrictions are definitely not in the spirit of open source. In other words, much of this is “openwashing”, which is a new trend like “greenwashing”. Anyways, I think it’s great that these models are able to challenge the really big proprietary models like ones from OpenAI or Anthropic. This shows the models are not that interesting or unique, and that the differentiation will come from who has access to training data. That is why Microsoft is scrambling to violate users’ privacy with Copilot agents autolaunched at startup (https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-tests-having-copilot-launch-automatically-at-startup-on-windows https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-tests-having-copilot-la...) and why Apple does not let you disable Siri training easily but only one by one for individual apps (https://www.imore.com/how-stop-siri-learning-how-you-use-apps-iphone-and-ipad https://www.imore.com/how-stop-siri-learning-how-you-use-app...). And that’s also why OpenAI and others seem to be pushing for regulations that restrict AI using excuses like “safety” or “ethics”, when it is really about regulatory capture.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  It seems like you can use "weights available" models to bootstrap "learning step available" models though? I guess the problem is like, if these closed models have a folder 'McDonalds propaganda' with the dummy 'treat-as-facts' file, in the training set, which I as a user would like to not include?
  - dTal 2y ago
    Indeed, and once the 'McDonalds propaganda' folder has been laundered through the weights, there is no reliable way to scrub it, particularly without knowing what was in it - any generated data might contain a subtle echo of it.
- snowpid 2y ago
  While I agree, that the term "Open Source model" is misleading, an "open weight model" is much more than closed source executable. It is quite easy to modify the model and it's possible to verify and test the model. It looks like "open weight models" are just a new paradigma in the world of CS.
  - zingelshuher 2y ago
    It's a matter of opinion how much open model should be to be called 'open source'. Looks like some believe they have the right to define it for everybody else to use. Like for software. Have to disagree. Why don't we introduce a separate term: 'open source, training infrastructure and data included for free'? "open weight model" is confusing, because actually the architecture is open too, only data is missing.
    - snowpid 2y ago
      the point of traditional open source software is what you can reproduce your build. This is not possible with open weight models.
      - 2y ago

60 points by ushakov 2y ago

(On MMLU) Tangentially related, I just posted something about all the weights available models trying to beat GPT https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40024925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40024925

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

These are not really open source models. They are open weight, which is like sharing an executable instead of the actual source code. You don’t have the things you need to reproduce the model weights. What’s actually needed for these to be open source is the training source code, the training data sets, any applicable pre- or post- processing code, evaluation code, etc. Although training the actual model is not feasible for people without the funds and hardware, having those things would at least allow the model to be auditable. Otherwise, we really have no idea what these open weight models are doing. They could be biasing themselves in various ways that are invisible but damaging. Another thing to watch out for is licensing. Only a few models use an actual open source license from OSI (like Apache). Many are using proprietary licenses that reference external terms that can change over time, or limit how you use their model. These restrictions are definitely not in the spirit of open source. In other words, much of this is “openwashing”, which is a new trend like “greenwashing”. Anyways, I think it’s great that these models are able to challenge the really big proprietary models like ones from OpenAI or Anthropic. This shows the models are not that interesting or unique, and that the differentiation will come from who has access to training data. That is why Microsoft is scrambling to violate users’ privacy with Copilot agents autolaunched at startup (https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-tests-having-copilot-launch-automatically-at-startup-on-windows https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-tests-having-copilot-la...) and why Apple does not let you disable Siri training easily but only one by one for individual apps (https://www.imore.com/how-stop-siri-learning-how-you-use-apps-iphone-and-ipad https://www.imore.com/how-stop-siri-learning-how-you-use-app...). And that’s also why OpenAI and others seem to be pushing for regulations that restrict AI using excuses like “safety” or “ethics”, when it is really about regulatory capture.

rightbyte 2y ago
It seems like you can use "weights available" models to bootstrap "learning step available" models though? I guess the problem is like, if these closed models have a folder 'McDonalds propaganda' with the dummy 'treat-as-facts' file, in the training set, which I as a user would like to not include?
- dTal 2y ago
  Indeed, and once the 'McDonalds propaganda' folder has been laundered through the weights, there is no reliable way to scrub it, particularly without knowing what was in it - any generated data might contain a subtle echo of it.
snowpid 2y ago
While I agree, that the term "Open Source model" is misleading, an "open weight model" is much more than closed source executable. It is quite easy to modify the model and it's possible to verify and test the model. It looks like "open weight models" are just a new paradigma in the world of CS.
- zingelshuher 2y ago
  It's a matter of opinion how much open model should be to be called 'open source'. Looks like some believe they have the right to define it for everybody else to use. Like for software. Have to disagree. Why don't we introduce a separate term: 'open source, training infrastructure and data included for free'? "open weight model" is confusing, because actually the architecture is open too, only data is missing.
  - snowpid 2y ago
    the point of traditional open source software is what you can reproduce your build. This is not possible with open weight models.
    - 2y ago