4 ms·

Honest question. As far as LLMs are concerned, isn't open weights same as open source?

mesebrec 2y ago
Open source requires, at the very least, that you can use it for any purpose. This is not the case with Llama. The Llama license has a lot of restrictions, based on user base size, type of use, etc. For example you're not allowed to use Llama to train or improve other models. But it goes much further than that. The government of India can't use Llama because they're too large. Sex workers are not allowed to use Llama due to the acceptable use policy of the license. Then there is also the vague language probibiting discrimination, racism etc.. good luck getting something like that approved by your legal team.
aloe_falsa 2y ago
GPL defines the “source code” of a work as the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. If Meta released a petabyte of raw training data, would that really be easier to extend and adapt (as opposed to fine-tuning the weights)?
paulhilbert 2y ago
No, I would argue that from the three main ingredients - training data, model source code and weights - weights are the furthest away from something akin to source code. They're more like obfuscated binaries. When it comes to fine-tuning only however things shift a little bit, yes.
- sidcool 2y ago
  I don't expect them to release the data used to train the models. But I agree that the code is an important ingredient of 'open'.
  - frabcus 2y ago
    Must include the code that curates the data
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
No open weights are the output of a proprietary and secretive process of training. It’s like sharing a pre compiled application instead of what you need to reproduce the compiled application. AI2’s OLMo is an example of what open source actually looks like for LLMs: https://blog.allenai.org/hello-olmo-a-truly-open-llm-43f7e7359222 https://blog.allenai.org/hello-olmo-a-truly-open-llm-43f7e73...

Open source requires, at the very least, that you can use it for any purpose. This is not the case with Llama. The Llama license has a lot of restrictions, based on user base size, type of use, etc. For example you're not allowed to use Llama to train or improve other models. But it goes much further than that. The government of India can't use Llama because they're too large. Sex workers are not allowed to use Llama due to the acceptable use policy of the license. Then there is also the vague language probibiting discrimination, racism etc.. good luck getting something like that approved by your legal team.

aloe_falsa 2y ago

GPL defines the “source code” of a work as the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. If Meta released a petabyte of raw training data, would that really be easier to extend and adapt (as opposed to fine-tuning the weights)?

paulhilbert 2y ago

No, I would argue that from the three main ingredients - training data, model source code and weights - weights are the furthest away from something akin to source code. They're more like obfuscated binaries. When it comes to fine-tuning only however things shift a little bit, yes.

sidcool 2y ago
I don't expect them to release the data used to train the models. But I agree that the code is an important ingredient of 'open'.
- frabcus 2y ago
  Must include the code that curates the data

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

No open weights are the output of a proprietary and secretive process of training. It’s like sharing a pre compiled application instead of what you need to reproduce the compiled application. AI2’s OLMo is an example of what open source actually looks like for LLMs: https://blog.allenai.org/hello-olmo-a-truly-open-llm-43f7e7359222 https://blog.allenai.org/hello-olmo-a-truly-open-llm-43f7e73...