4 ms·
I guess it's a good paper. But often times complaints that an AI system "isn't really open-source" coming from folks who are really against open-source AI to be
by artninja1988 2y ago
I guess it's a good paper. But often times complaints that an AI system "isn't really open-source" coming from folks who are really against open-source AI to begin with strike me as a bad faith debate tactic. Just call them open weights. But I do think that Llama etc being open weights has been a huge benefit and do not wish any more barriers to be enacted to make them stop releasing open weight models.
- w10-1 2y ago> coming from folks who are really against open-source AI to begin with strike me as a bad faith debate tactic Meaning: really against AI? But Nietzsche said it's our enemies who are honest with us. > do not wish any more barriers to be enacted to make them stop releasing open weight models I think there are two models: 1. AI's potential for harm in open society requires some mitigation. Openness could be a mitigation. How effective is it? 2. I'm so glad the big guys are releasing bits that I can work with to build companies or at least an interview vignette. Please don't mess with that. Honestly, the second is a direct, personal motivator for me and the first is a kind of fuzzy problem for unspecified leaders of society, but I probably shouldn't be oblivious to it if I want to maintain any respect. So, perhaps not bad faith in the legal or the philosophical senses, but certainly a modern mix of incentives. I for one am very glad someone's done the work of normalizing the list of features so we can have a product discussion.