3 ms·
This isn't what Meta releases with their models, though I would like to see more public training data. However, I still don't think that would qualify as "open
by the8thbit 2y ago
This isn't what Meta releases with their models, though I would like to see more public training data. However, I still don't think that would qualify as "open source". Something isn't open source just because its reproducible out of composable parts. If one, very critical and system defining part is a binary (or similar) without publicly available source code, then I don't think it can be said to be "open source". That would be like saying that Windows 11 is open source because Windows Calculator is open source, and its a component of Windows.
- orthoxerox 2y agoThat's what I meant by "open steps", I guess I wasn't clear enough.
- the8thbit 2y agoIs that what you meant? I don't think releasing the sequence of steps required to produce the model satisfies "open source", which is how I interpreted you, because there is still no source code for the model.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoHere’s one list of what is needed to be actually open source: https://blog.allenai.org/hello-olmo-a-truly-open-llm-43f7e7359222 https://blog.allenai.org/hello-olmo-a-truly-open-llm-43f7e73...