3 ms·

Which models claim that they are "open source" but are not? I think none of them. I think people confuse "open weight" with "open source." That confusion comes

by mirzap 2y ago

Which models claim that they are "open source" but are not? I think none of them. I think people confuse "open weight" with "open source." That confusion comes from the "internet AI experts," not the labs that produced them.

l5870uoo9y 2y ago
The confusion also stems from companies deliberately using the term for marketing purposes. Strong separation between the open source, academia and business environments doesn’t exist as much as it used to. Can’t imagine a Richard Stallman or Linus Thorvalds engaging in blurry half-open source, half business projects.
ninjin 2y ago
Facebook has been touting their work as both "open source" and "open science", despite being in direct violation of the terms [1, 2]. Others have done similar things, but not on such a big scale and with models with such big reach. In the community, the terms have now become sufficiently muddied that it is hard to have a conversation about what an open model even is. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09288 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09288 [2]: https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-ope... Thankfully, OLMo [3] reverted their decision to go with a license that contained usage restrictions and hopefully this sets the standard going forward so that the corporate actors no longer can appropriate the term and will find a suitable term on their own such as "available". But it pains me to see that they had to write "truly open" to distinguish themselves from the "poseurs". [3]: https://allenai.org/olmo https://allenai.org/olmo
- dartos 2y ago
  When llama got leaked meta went full EEE and now discussion around open source and LLMs will take years to straighten out
imjonse 2y ago
Mistral even used the term 'truly open' in their announcement: https://mistral.ai/news/mixtral-8x22b/ https://mistral.ai/news/mixtral-8x22b/ Also from the Llama 3 announcement: 'Today, we’re introducing Meta Llama 3, the next generation of our state-of-the-art open source large language model.'
imjonse 2y ago
Section 1.3 of the paper has lots of examples. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3630106.3659005#page=6 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3630106.3659005#page=6
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lolinder 2y ago
Aside from what others have mentioned (tons of them do use the term open source), "open weight" is deliberately meant to parallel "open source" but in practice it doesn't. Most "open weight" models have usage restrictions that would make a code license most definitely not open. The right term for most of these models would be "weights available".

by mirzap 2y ago

l5870uoo9y 2y ago

The confusion also stems from companies deliberately using the term for marketing purposes. Strong separation between the open source, academia and business environments doesn’t exist as much as it used to. Can’t imagine a Richard Stallman or Linus Thorvalds engaging in blurry half-open source, half business projects.

ninjin 2y ago

Facebook has been touting their work as both "open source" and "open science", despite being in direct violation of the terms [1, 2]. Others have done similar things, but not on such a big scale and with models with such big reach. In the community, the terms have now become sufficiently muddied that it is hard to have a conversation about what an open model even is. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09288 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09288 [2]: https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-ope... Thankfully, OLMo [3] reverted their decision to go with a license that contained usage restrictions and hopefully this sets the standard going forward so that the corporate actors no longer can appropriate the term and will find a suitable term on their own such as "available". But it pains me to see that they had to write "truly open" to distinguish themselves from the "poseurs". [3]: https://allenai.org/olmo https://allenai.org/olmo

dartos 2y ago
When llama got leaked meta went full EEE and now discussion around open source and LLMs will take years to straighten out

imjonse 2y ago

Mistral even used the term 'truly open' in their announcement: https://mistral.ai/news/mixtral-8x22b/ https://mistral.ai/news/mixtral-8x22b/ Also from the Llama 3 announcement: 'Today, we’re introducing Meta Llama 3, the next generation of our state-of-the-art open source large language model.'

imjonse 2y ago

Section 1.3 of the paper has lots of examples. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3630106.3659005#page=6 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3630106.3659005#page=6

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lolinder 2y ago

Aside from what others have mentioned (tons of them do use the term open source), "open weight" is deliberately meant to parallel "open source" but in practice it doesn't. Most "open weight" models have usage restrictions that would make a code license most definitely not open. The right term for most of these models would be "weights available".