9 ms·

https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/LICENSE Llama is not open source. It's corporate freeware

https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/LICENSE Llama is not open source. It's corporate freeware with some generous allowances. Open source licenses are a well defined thing. Meta marketing saying otherwise doesn't mean they get to usurp the meaning of a well understood and commonly used understanding of the term "open source." https://opensource.org/license https://opensource.org/license Nothing about Meta's license is open source. It's a carefully constructed legal agreement intended to prevent any meaningful encroachment by anyone, ever, into any potential Meta profit, and to disavow liability to prevent reputational harm in the case of someone using their freeware for something embarrassing. If you use it against the license anyway, you'll just have to hope you never get successful enough that it becomes more profitable to sue you and take your product away than it would be annoying to prosecute you under their legal rights. When the threshold between annoying and profitable is crossed, Meta's lawyers will start sniping and acquiring users of their IP.

robertlagrant 3y ago
What is "source" regarding an LLM? Public training data and initial parameters?
- J_cst 3y ago
  Not an expert, but often weights are mentioned as not being open sourced. Happy to get corrected, as I'm not really sure.
  - blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
    Weights aren’t source because the goal of having open source software is that you can know how the software you’re consuming works, and you can produce the final software (the executable) using the source yourself. When you only have weights, you are getting something like the executable. Sure you can tweak it, but you don’t have the things you need to reproduce it or to examine how it works and validate it for your purposes. As such open weights are not in the spirit of open source.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      I don't think the previous commenter was saying that it's okay to only release the weights.
- observationist 3y ago
  The parameters and the license. Mistral uses Apache 2.0, a neatly permissive open source license. As such, it's an open source model. Models are similar to code you might run on a compiled vm or native operating system. Llama.cpp is to a model as Python is to a python script. The license lays out the rights and responsibilities of the users of the software, or the model, in this case. The training data, process, pipeline to build the model in the first place is a distinct and separate thing from the models themselves. It'd be nice if those were open, too, but when dealing with just the model: If it uses an OSI recognized open source license, it is an open source model. If it doesn't use an OSI recognized open source license, it's not. Llama is not open source. It's corporate freeware.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    Mistral is not “open source” either since we cannot reproduce it (the training data is not published). Both are open weight models, and they are both released under a license whose legal basis is unclear: it's not actually clear if they own any intellectual property over the model at all. Of course they claim such IP, but no court has ruled on this yet AFAIK and legislators could also enact laws that make these public domain altogether.
    - jiggawatts 3y ago
      Is “reproducibility” actually the right term here? It’s a bit like arguing that Linux is not open source because you don’t have every email Linus and the maintainers ever received. Or that you don’t know what lectures Linus attended or what books he’s read. The weights “are the thing” in the same sense that the “code is the thing”. You can modify open code and recompile it. You can similarly modify weights with fine tuning or even architectural changes. You don’t need to go “back to the beginning” in the same sense that Linux would continue to be open source even without the Git history and the LKM mailing list.
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        > It’s a bit like arguing that Linux is not open source because you don’t have every email Linus and the maintainers ever received. Or that you don’t know what lectures Linus attended or what books he’s read. Linux is open source, because you can actually compile it yourself! You don't need Linus's email for that (and if you needed some secret cryptographic key on Linus' laptop to decrypt and compile the kernel, then it wouldn't make sense to call it open-source either). A language model isn't a piece of code, it's a huge binary blob that's being executed by a small piece of code that contains little of the added value, everything that matters is in the blob. Sharing only the compiled blob and the code to run makes it unsuitable for an “open source qualifier” (It's kind of the same thing as proprietary Java code: the VM is open-source but the bytecode you run on it isn't). And yes, you can fine-tune and change things in the model weights themselves the same way you can edit the binary of a proprietary game to disable DRMs, that doesn't make it open-source either. Fine tuning doesn't give you the same level of control over the behavior of the model as the initial training does, like binary hacking doesn't give you the same control as having the source code to edit and rebuild.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
  See this discussion and blog post about a model called OLMo from AI2 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39974374 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39974374). They try to be more truly open, although here are nuances even with them that make it not fully open. Just like with open source software, an open source model should provide everything you need to reproduce the final output, and with transparency. That means you need the training source code, the data sets, the evaluation suites, the inference code, and more. Most of these other models, like Llama, are open weight not open source - and open weight is just openwashing, since you’re just getting the final output like a compiled executable. But even with OLMo (and others like Databrick’s DBRX) there are issues with proprietary licenses being used for some things, which prevent truly free use. For some reason in the AI world there is heavy resistance to using OSI-approved licenses like Apache or MIT. Finally, there is still a lack of openness and transparency on the training data sets even with models that release those data sets. This is because they do a lot of filtering to produce those data sets that happen without any transparency. For example AI2’s OLMo uses a dataset that has been filtered to remove “toxic” content or “hateful” content, with input from “ethics experts” - and this is of course a key input into the overall model that can heavily bias its performance, accuracy, and neutrality. Unfortunately, there is a lot missing from the current AI landscape as far as openness.
  - sunandcoffee 3y ago
    what are you thoughts on projects like these: https://www.llm360.ai/ https://www.llm360.ai/ seems like they make everything available.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  I think the proper way is to start the consideration from the perspective of what the user can do, for example, from the four freedoms of FSF (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#four-freedoms) The starting point is the ability to run the LLM as you wish, for any purpose - so if a license prohibits some uses and you have to start any usage with thinking whether it's permitted or not, that's a fail. Then the freedom where "source" matters is the practical freedom to change the behavior so it does your computing as you wish. And that's a bit tricky - since one interpretation would require having the training data, training code and parameters; but for current LLMs the training hardware and cost of running it is a major practical limitation, so much that one could argue that the ability to change the behavior (which is the core freedom that we'd like) is separate from the ability to recreate the model, and would be more relevant in the context of the "instruction training" which happens after the main training, is the main determiner of behavior (as opposed to capability), and so the main "source would be the data for that (instruct training data, and the model weights before that finetuning) so that you can fine-tune the model on different instructions, which requires much less resources than training it from scratch, and don't have to start with the instructions and values imposed on the LLM by someone else.
CuriouslyC 3y ago
Models are mostly fungible, if meta decided to play games it's not too hard to switch models. I think this is mostly a CYA play.
tarruda 3y ago
> When the threshold between annoying and profitable is crossed, Meta's lawyers will start sniping and acquiring users of their IP. I'm curious: given that the model will probably be hosted in a private server, how would meta know or prove that someone is using their model against the license?
- not2b 3y ago
  If they can develop any evidence at all (perhaps from a whistleblower, perhaps from some characteristic unique to their model), they can sue and then there's they get to do "discovery", which would force the sued party to reveal details.
stale2002 3y ago
Yes or no, do you conceed that for almost everyone, none of what you said matters, and almost everyone can use llama 3 for their use case, and that basically nobody is going to have to worry about being sued, other than maybe like Google, or equivalent? You are using all these scary words without saying the obvious, which is that for almost everyone, none of that matters.
- sebastiennight 3y ago
  I don't support GP's claims, but you have to realize that you're "almost everyone" up until you build something very successful with lots of capital at stake, and then you definitely become "someone special" and have to think ahead about how the licenses of your models impact you. Of course random individuals don't care much about the licenses on their personal AI projects. But if you intend to grow something significant, you better read the label from the start.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - oceanplexian 3y ago
    Or you could out play nice and pay Meta for the privilege at the point you are on the radar? I mean 99% of YC startups out there are building their business on some kind of proprietary cloud API. The fact that you can even run this..on your own servers is a massive departure from the entire tech ecosystem of the last 10-12 years.
- EamonnMR 3y ago
  Would you then say that in general Open Source doesn't matter for almost everyone? Most people running Linux aren't serving 700 million customers or operating military killbots with it after all.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > in general Open Source doesn't matter for almost everyone? Most of the qualities that come with open source (which also come with llama 3), matter a lot. But no, it is not a binary, yes or no thing, where something is either open source and useful or not. Instead, there is a very wide spectrum is licensing agreements. And even if something does not fit the very specific and exact definition of open source, it can still be "almost" there and therefore be basically as useful. I am objecting to the idea that any slight deviation from the highly specific definition of open source means that it no longer "counts". Even though, If something is 99.9% the same as open source, then you get 99.9% of the benefits, and it is dishonest to say that it is significantly different than open source.
jph00 3y ago
> "Nothing about Meta's license is open source. It's a carefully constructed legal agreement intended to prevent any meaningful encroachment by anyone, ever, into any potential Meta profit, and to disavow liability to prevent reputational harm in the case of someone using their freeware for something embarrassing." You seem to be making claims that have little connection to the actual license. The license states you can't use the model if, at the time Llama 3 was released, you had >700 million customers. It also says you can't use it for illegal/military/etc uses. Other than that, you can use it as you wish.
- simonw 3y ago
  Those additional restrictions mean it's not an open source license by the OSI definition, which matters if you care about words sometimes having unambiguous meanings. I call models like this "openly licensed" but not "open source licensed".
  - jph00 3y ago
    The OSI definition applies to source code -- I'm not sure the term "open source" makes much sense applied to model weights. Whilst I agree the term isn't ideal, I don't agree with the other comments in the post I originally replied to.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
    Call it what you will, but it'd be silly if Meta let these 700M+ customer mega-corps (Amazon, Google, etc) just take Meta models and sell access to them without sharing revenue with Meta. You should be happy that Meta find ways to make money from their models, otherwise it's unlikely that they'd be giving you free access (until your startup reaches 700M+ customers, when the free ride ends).
    - krisoft 3y ago
      > until your startup reaches 700M+ customers, when the free ride ends No it doesn’t. The licence terms talk about that those who on the release date of llama3 had 700M+ customers need an extra licence to use it. It doesn’t say that you loose access to it if in the future you gain that many users.
freehorse 3y ago
What are the practical use cases where the license prohibits people from using llama models? There are plenty of startups and companies that already build their business on llamas (eg phind.com). I do not see the issues that you assume exist. If you get that successful that you cannot use it anymore (have 10% of earth's population as clients) probably you can train your own models already.
- aurbxyajwur 3y ago
  The license prohibits Snap from using it. Meta knows that it would be useful to Snap and that they don’t have the resources to train their own model.
bevekspldnw 3y ago
I don’t understand how the idea of open source become some sort of pseudo-legalistic purity test on everything. Models aren’t code, some of the concepts of open source code don’t map 1:1 to freely available models. In spirit I think this is “open source”, and I think that’s how the majority of people think. Turning everything into some sort of theological debate takes away a lot of credit that Meta deserves. Google isn’t doing this. OpenAI sure as fuck isn’t.
- nomel 3y ago
  > Turning everything into some sort of theological debate takes away a lot of credit that Meta deserves. It's not theological, it's the misuse of a specific legal definition that we all have interest in maintaining. "Freely available models" or "open license" are accurate. Other companies keeping things for themselves doesn't warp reality, or the existing definitions we use to describe it. Giving them the credit they deserve, especially in comparison to the others, should be enough.
  - bevekspldnw 3y ago
    Hate to break it to you but there’s a thousand court cases a day precisely because “specific legal definition” is a surprisingly flexible concept depending on context. Likewise when new technologies emerge it often requires reappraisal and interpretation of existing laws, even if that reappraisal is simply extending the old law to the new context.
    - nomel 3y ago
      This isn't a problem with interpretation, as I would guess those are. This is a term that clearly describes requirements for a category, with the these models licenses purposefully and directly excluding themselves from that category.
- skybrian 3y ago
  It doesn’t mean it’s a bad license, just that it doesn’t meet the definition. There are legitimate reasons for companies to use source-available licenses. You still get to see the source code and do some useful things with it, but read the terms to see what you can do. Meanwhile, there are also good reasons not to water down a well-defined term so it becomes meaningless like “agile” or “open.” This gets confusing because people want to use “open source” as a sort of marketing term that just means it’s good, so if you say it’s not open source that’s taken to imply it’s bad.
KingOfCoders 3y ago
"Llama is not open source." This is interesting. Can you point me to an OSI discussion what would constitute an open source license for LLMs? Obviously they have "source" (network definitions) and "training data" and "weights". I'm not aware of any such discussion.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  Actually right now the OSI is hosting ongoing discussion this year on what it means for AI to be open source. Here is their latest blog post on the subject: https://opensource.org/blog/open-source-ai-definition-weekly-update-april-15 https://opensource.org/blog/open-source-ai-definition-weekly... Here is the latest draft definition: https://hackmd.io/@opensourceinitiative/osaid-0-0-7 https://hackmd.io/@opensourceinitiative/osaid-0-0-7 And a discussion about the draft: https://discuss.opensource.org/t/draft-v-0-0-7-of-the-open-source-ai-definition-is-available-for-comments/298 https://discuss.opensource.org/t/draft-v-0-0-7-of-the-open-s...
  - KingOfCoders 3y ago
    Thanks!
dang 3y ago
(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40077832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40077832)

robertlagrant 3y ago

What is "source" regarding an LLM? Public training data and initial parameters?

J_cst 3y ago
Not an expert, but often weights are mentioned as not being open sourced. Happy to get corrected, as I'm not really sure.
- blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
  Weights aren’t source because the goal of having open source software is that you can know how the software you’re consuming works, and you can produce the final software (the executable) using the source yourself. When you only have weights, you are getting something like the executable. Sure you can tweak it, but you don’t have the things you need to reproduce it or to examine how it works and validate it for your purposes. As such open weights are not in the spirit of open source.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    I don't think the previous commenter was saying that it's okay to only release the weights.
observationist 3y ago
The parameters and the license. Mistral uses Apache 2.0, a neatly permissive open source license. As such, it's an open source model. Models are similar to code you might run on a compiled vm or native operating system. Llama.cpp is to a model as Python is to a python script. The license lays out the rights and responsibilities of the users of the software, or the model, in this case. The training data, process, pipeline to build the model in the first place is a distinct and separate thing from the models themselves. It'd be nice if those were open, too, but when dealing with just the model: If it uses an OSI recognized open source license, it is an open source model. If it doesn't use an OSI recognized open source license, it's not. Llama is not open source. It's corporate freeware.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  Mistral is not “open source” either since we cannot reproduce it (the training data is not published). Both are open weight models, and they are both released under a license whose legal basis is unclear: it's not actually clear if they own any intellectual property over the model at all. Of course they claim such IP, but no court has ruled on this yet AFAIK and legislators could also enact laws that make these public domain altogether.
  - jiggawatts 3y ago
    Is “reproducibility” actually the right term here? It’s a bit like arguing that Linux is not open source because you don’t have every email Linus and the maintainers ever received. Or that you don’t know what lectures Linus attended or what books he’s read. The weights “are the thing” in the same sense that the “code is the thing”. You can modify open code and recompile it. You can similarly modify weights with fine tuning or even architectural changes. You don’t need to go “back to the beginning” in the same sense that Linux would continue to be open source even without the Git history and the LKM mailing list.
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      > It’s a bit like arguing that Linux is not open source because you don’t have every email Linus and the maintainers ever received. Or that you don’t know what lectures Linus attended or what books he’s read. Linux is open source, because you can actually compile it yourself! You don't need Linus's email for that (and if you needed some secret cryptographic key on Linus' laptop to decrypt and compile the kernel, then it wouldn't make sense to call it open-source either). A language model isn't a piece of code, it's a huge binary blob that's being executed by a small piece of code that contains little of the added value, everything that matters is in the blob. Sharing only the compiled blob and the code to run makes it unsuitable for an “open source qualifier” (It's kind of the same thing as proprietary Java code: the VM is open-source but the bytecode you run on it isn't). And yes, you can fine-tune and change things in the model weights themselves the same way you can edit the binary of a proprietary game to disable DRMs, that doesn't make it open-source either. Fine tuning doesn't give you the same level of control over the behavior of the model as the initial training does, like binary hacking doesn't give you the same control as having the source code to edit and rebuild.
blackeyeblitzar 3y ago
See this discussion and blog post about a model called OLMo from AI2 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39974374 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39974374). They try to be more truly open, although here are nuances even with them that make it not fully open. Just like with open source software, an open source model should provide everything you need to reproduce the final output, and with transparency. That means you need the training source code, the data sets, the evaluation suites, the inference code, and more. Most of these other models, like Llama, are open weight not open source - and open weight is just openwashing, since you’re just getting the final output like a compiled executable. But even with OLMo (and others like Databrick’s DBRX) there are issues with proprietary licenses being used for some things, which prevent truly free use. For some reason in the AI world there is heavy resistance to using OSI-approved licenses like Apache or MIT. Finally, there is still a lack of openness and transparency on the training data sets even with models that release those data sets. This is because they do a lot of filtering to produce those data sets that happen without any transparency. For example AI2’s OLMo uses a dataset that has been filtered to remove “toxic” content or “hateful” content, with input from “ethics experts” - and this is of course a key input into the overall model that can heavily bias its performance, accuracy, and neutrality. Unfortunately, there is a lot missing from the current AI landscape as far as openness.
- sunandcoffee 3y ago
  what are you thoughts on projects like these: https://www.llm360.ai/ https://www.llm360.ai/ seems like they make everything available.
PeterisP 3y ago
I think the proper way is to start the consideration from the perspective of what the user can do, for example, from the four freedoms of FSF (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en#four-freedoms) The starting point is the ability to run the LLM as you wish, for any purpose - so if a license prohibits some uses and you have to start any usage with thinking whether it's permitted or not, that's a fail. Then the freedom where "source" matters is the practical freedom to change the behavior so it does your computing as you wish. And that's a bit tricky - since one interpretation would require having the training data, training code and parameters; but for current LLMs the training hardware and cost of running it is a major practical limitation, so much that one could argue that the ability to change the behavior (which is the core freedom that we'd like) is separate from the ability to recreate the model, and would be more relevant in the context of the "instruction training" which happens after the main training, is the main determiner of behavior (as opposed to capability), and so the main "source would be the data for that (instruct training data, and the model weights before that finetuning) so that you can fine-tune the model on different instructions, which requires much less resources than training it from scratch, and don't have to start with the instructions and values imposed on the LLM by someone else.

CuriouslyC 3y ago

Models are mostly fungible, if meta decided to play games it's not too hard to switch models. I think this is mostly a CYA play.

tarruda 3y ago

> When the threshold between annoying and profitable is crossed, Meta's lawyers will start sniping and acquiring users of their IP. I'm curious: given that the model will probably be hosted in a private server, how would meta know or prove that someone is using their model against the license?

not2b 3y ago
If they can develop any evidence at all (perhaps from a whistleblower, perhaps from some characteristic unique to their model), they can sue and then there's they get to do "discovery", which would force the sued party to reveal details.

stale2002 3y ago

Yes or no, do you conceed that for almost everyone, none of what you said matters, and almost everyone can use llama 3 for their use case, and that basically nobody is going to have to worry about being sued, other than maybe like Google, or equivalent? You are using all these scary words without saying the obvious, which is that for almost everyone, none of that matters.

sebastiennight 3y ago
I don't support GP's claims, but you have to realize that you're "almost everyone" up until you build something very successful with lots of capital at stake, and then you definitely become "someone special" and have to think ahead about how the licenses of your models impact you. Of course random individuals don't care much about the licenses on their personal AI projects. But if you intend to grow something significant, you better read the label from the start.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- oceanplexian 3y ago
  Or you could out play nice and pay Meta for the privilege at the point you are on the radar? I mean 99% of YC startups out there are building their business on some kind of proprietary cloud API. The fact that you can even run this..on your own servers is a massive departure from the entire tech ecosystem of the last 10-12 years.
EamonnMR 3y ago
Would you then say that in general Open Source doesn't matter for almost everyone? Most people running Linux aren't serving 700 million customers or operating military killbots with it after all.
- stale2002 3y ago
  > in general Open Source doesn't matter for almost everyone? Most of the qualities that come with open source (which also come with llama 3), matter a lot. But no, it is not a binary, yes or no thing, where something is either open source and useful or not. Instead, there is a very wide spectrum is licensing agreements. And even if something does not fit the very specific and exact definition of open source, it can still be "almost" there and therefore be basically as useful. I am objecting to the idea that any slight deviation from the highly specific definition of open source means that it no longer "counts". Even though, If something is 99.9% the same as open source, then you get 99.9% of the benefits, and it is dishonest to say that it is significantly different than open source.

jph00 3y ago

> "Nothing about Meta's license is open source. It's a carefully constructed legal agreement intended to prevent any meaningful encroachment by anyone, ever, into any potential Meta profit, and to disavow liability to prevent reputational harm in the case of someone using their freeware for something embarrassing." You seem to be making claims that have little connection to the actual license. The license states you can't use the model if, at the time Llama 3 was released, you had >700 million customers. It also says you can't use it for illegal/military/etc uses. Other than that, you can use it as you wish.

simonw 3y ago
Those additional restrictions mean it's not an open source license by the OSI definition, which matters if you care about words sometimes having unambiguous meanings. I call models like this "openly licensed" but not "open source licensed".
- jph00 3y ago
  The OSI definition applies to source code -- I'm not sure the term "open source" makes much sense applied to model weights. Whilst I agree the term isn't ideal, I don't agree with the other comments in the post I originally replied to.
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
  Call it what you will, but it'd be silly if Meta let these 700M+ customer mega-corps (Amazon, Google, etc) just take Meta models and sell access to them without sharing revenue with Meta. You should be happy that Meta find ways to make money from their models, otherwise it's unlikely that they'd be giving you free access (until your startup reaches 700M+ customers, when the free ride ends).
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > until your startup reaches 700M+ customers, when the free ride ends No it doesn’t. The licence terms talk about that those who on the release date of llama3 had 700M+ customers need an extra licence to use it. It doesn’t say that you loose access to it if in the future you gain that many users.

freehorse 3y ago

What are the practical use cases where the license prohibits people from using llama models? There are plenty of startups and companies that already build their business on llamas (eg phind.com). I do not see the issues that you assume exist. If you get that successful that you cannot use it anymore (have 10% of earth's population as clients) probably you can train your own models already.

aurbxyajwur 3y ago
The license prohibits Snap from using it. Meta knows that it would be useful to Snap and that they don’t have the resources to train their own model.

bevekspldnw 3y ago

I don’t understand how the idea of open source become some sort of pseudo-legalistic purity test on everything. Models aren’t code, some of the concepts of open source code don’t map 1:1 to freely available models. In spirit I think this is “open source”, and I think that’s how the majority of people think. Turning everything into some sort of theological debate takes away a lot of credit that Meta deserves. Google isn’t doing this. OpenAI sure as fuck isn’t.

nomel 3y ago
> Turning everything into some sort of theological debate takes away a lot of credit that Meta deserves. It's not theological, it's the misuse of a specific legal definition that we all have interest in maintaining. "Freely available models" or "open license" are accurate. Other companies keeping things for themselves doesn't warp reality, or the existing definitions we use to describe it. Giving them the credit they deserve, especially in comparison to the others, should be enough.
- bevekspldnw 3y ago
  Hate to break it to you but there’s a thousand court cases a day precisely because “specific legal definition” is a surprisingly flexible concept depending on context. Likewise when new technologies emerge it often requires reappraisal and interpretation of existing laws, even if that reappraisal is simply extending the old law to the new context.
  - nomel 3y ago
    This isn't a problem with interpretation, as I would guess those are. This is a term that clearly describes requirements for a category, with the these models licenses purposefully and directly excluding themselves from that category.
skybrian 3y ago
It doesn’t mean it’s a bad license, just that it doesn’t meet the definition. There are legitimate reasons for companies to use source-available licenses. You still get to see the source code and do some useful things with it, but read the terms to see what you can do. Meanwhile, there are also good reasons not to water down a well-defined term so it becomes meaningless like “agile” or “open.” This gets confusing because people want to use “open source” as a sort of marketing term that just means it’s good, so if you say it’s not open source that’s taken to imply it’s bad.

KingOfCoders 3y ago

"Llama is not open source." This is interesting. Can you point me to an OSI discussion what would constitute an open source license for LLMs? Obviously they have "source" (network definitions) and "training data" and "weights". I'm not aware of any such discussion.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
Actually right now the OSI is hosting ongoing discussion this year on what it means for AI to be open source. Here is their latest blog post on the subject: https://opensource.org/blog/open-source-ai-definition-weekly-update-april-15 https://opensource.org/blog/open-source-ai-definition-weekly... Here is the latest draft definition: https://hackmd.io/@opensourceinitiative/osaid-0-0-7 https://hackmd.io/@opensourceinitiative/osaid-0-0-7 And a discussion about the draft: https://discuss.opensource.org/t/draft-v-0-0-7-of-the-open-source-ai-definition-is-available-for-comments/298 https://discuss.opensource.org/t/draft-v-0-0-7-of-the-open-s...
- KingOfCoders 3y ago
  Thanks!

dang 3y ago

(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40077832 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40077832)