4 ms·

> Today we’re taking the next steps towards open source AI becoming the industry standard. We’re releasing Llama 3.1 405B, the first frontier-level open source

by diggan 2y ago

> Today we’re taking the next steps towards open source AI becoming the industry standard. We’re releasing Llama 3.1 405B, the first frontier-level open source AI model, Why do people keep mislabeling this as Open Source? The whole point of calling something Open Source is that the "magic sauce" of how to build something is publicly available, so I could built it myself if I have the means. But without the training data publicly available, could I train Llama 3.1 if I had the means? No wonder Zuckerberg doesn't start with defining what Open Source actually means, as then the blogpost would have lost all meaning from the get go. Just call it "Open Model" or something. As it stands right now, the meaning of Open Source is being diluted by all these companies pretending to doing one thing, while actually doing something else. I initially got very exciting seeing the title and the domain, but hopelessly sad after reading through the article and realizing they're still trying to pass their artifacts off as Open Source projects.

valine 2y ago
The codebase to do the training is way less valuable than the weights for the vast majority of people. Releasing the training code would be nice, but it doesn't really help anyone but Meta's direct competitors. If you want to train on top of Llama there's absolutely nothing stopping you. Plenty of open source tools to do parameter optimization.
- diggan 2y ago
  Not just the training code but the training data as well, should be under a permissive license, otherwise you cannot call the project itself Open Source, which Facebook does here. > is way less valuable than the weights for the vast majority of people The same is true for most Open Source projects, most people use the distributed binaries or other artifacts from the projects, and couldn't care less about the code itself. But that doesn't warrant us changing the meaning of Open Source just because companies feel like it's free PR. > If you want to train on top of Llama there's absolutely nothing stopping you. Sure, but in order for the intent of Open Source to be true for Llama, I should be able to build this project from scratch. Say I have a farm of 100 A100's, could I reproduce the Llama model from scratch today?
  - unshavedyak 2y ago
    > Not just the training code but the training data as well, should be under a permissive license, otherwise you cannot call the project itself Open Source, which Facebook does here. Does FB even have the capability to do that? I'd assume there's a bunch of data that's not theirs and they can't even release it. Let alone some data that they might not want to admit is in the source.
    - bornfreddy 2y ago
      If not, it is questionable if they should train on such data anyway. Also, that doesn't matter in this discussion - if you are unable to release the source under appropriate licence (for whatever reason), you should not call it Open Source.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    I will steelman the idea that a tokenizer and weights are all you need for the "source" of an LLM. They are components that can be modified, redistributed and when put together, reproduce the full experience intended. If we insist upon the release of training data with Open models, you might as well kiss the idea of usable Open LLMs out the door. Most of the content in training datasets like The Pile are not licensed for redistribution in any way shape or form. It would jeopardize projects that do use transparent training data while not offering anything of value to the community compared to the training code. Republishing all training data is an absolute trap.
    - enriquto 2y ago
      > Most of the content in training datasets like The Pile are not licensed for redistribution in any way shape or form. But distributing the weights is a "form" of distribution. You can recover many items of the dataset (most easily, the outliers) by using the weights. Just because they are codified in a non-readily accessible way, does not mean that you are not distributing them. It's scary to think that "training" is becoming a thinly veiled way to strip copyright of works.
vngzs 2y ago
Agreed. The Linux kernel source contains everything you need to produce Linux kernel binaries. The llama source does not contain what you need to produce llama models. Facebook is using sleight of hand to garner favor with open model weights. Open model weights are still commendable, but it's a far cry from open-source (or even libre) software!
elromulous 2y ago
100%. With this licensing model, meta gets to reap the benefits of open source (people contributing, social cachet), without any of the real detriment (exposing secret sauce).
hbn 2y ago
Is that even something they keep on hand? Or would WANT to keep on hand? I figured they're basically sending a crawler to go nuts reading things and discard the data once they've trained on it. If that included, e.g. reading all of Github for code, I wouldn't expect them to host an entire separate read-only copy of Github because they trained on it and say "this is part of our open source model"
jdminhbg 2y ago
> Why do people keep mislabeling this as Open Source? The whole point of calling something Open Source is that the "magic sauce" of how to build something is publicly available, so I could built it myself if I have the means. But without the training data publicly available, could I train Llama 3.1 if I had the means? I don't think not releasing the commit history of a project makes it not Open Source, this seems like that to me. What's important is you can download it, run it, modify it, and re-release it. Being able to see how the sausage was made would be interesting, but I don't think Meta have to show their training data any more than they are obligated to release their planning meeting notes for React development. Edit: I think the restrictions in the license itself are good cause for saying it shouldn't be called Open Source, fwiw.
- thenoblesunfish 2y ago
  You don't need to have the commit history to see "how it works". ML that works well does so in huge part due to the training data used. The leading models today aren't distinguished by the way they're trained, but what they're trained on.
  - jdminhbg 2y ago
    I agree that you need training data to build AI from scratch, much like you need lots of really smart developers and a mailing list and servers and stuff to build the Linux kernel from scratch. But it's not like having the training data and training code will get you the same result, in the way something like open data in science is about replicating results.
    - frabcus 2y ago
      Reproducible builds of software binaries are a thing, but they aren't routinely done. Likewise training an AI is deterministic if you do it the same each time. And slight variances lead to similar capability models.
- tempfile 2y ago
  For the freedom to change to be effective, a user must be given the software in a form they can modify. Can you tweak an LLM once it's built? (I genuinely don't know the answer)
unraveller 2y ago
Open-weights is not open-source, for sure, but I don't mind it being stated as an aspiration goal, the moment it is legally possible to publish a source without shooting themselves in the foot they should do it. They could release 50% of their best data but that would only stop them from attracting the best talent.
JeremyNT 2y ago
> Why do people keep mislabeling this as Open Source? I guess this is a rhetorical question, but this is a press release from Meta itself. It's just a marketing ploy, of course.
stbenjam 2y ago
InstructLab and the Granite Models from IBM seem the closest to being open source. Certainly more than whatever FB is doing here. (Disclaimer: I work for an IBM subsidiary but not on any of these products)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by diggan 2y ago

valine 2y ago

The codebase to do the training is way less valuable than the weights for the vast majority of people. Releasing the training code would be nice, but it doesn't really help anyone but Meta's direct competitors. If you want to train on top of Llama there's absolutely nothing stopping you. Plenty of open source tools to do parameter optimization.

diggan 2y ago
Not just the training code but the training data as well, should be under a permissive license, otherwise you cannot call the project itself Open Source, which Facebook does here. > is way less valuable than the weights for the vast majority of people The same is true for most Open Source projects, most people use the distributed binaries or other artifacts from the projects, and couldn't care less about the code itself. But that doesn't warrant us changing the meaning of Open Source just because companies feel like it's free PR. > If you want to train on top of Llama there's absolutely nothing stopping you. Sure, but in order for the intent of Open Source to be true for Llama, I should be able to build this project from scratch. Say I have a farm of 100 A100's, could I reproduce the Llama model from scratch today?
- unshavedyak 2y ago
  > Not just the training code but the training data as well, should be under a permissive license, otherwise you cannot call the project itself Open Source, which Facebook does here. Does FB even have the capability to do that? I'd assume there's a bunch of data that's not theirs and they can't even release it. Let alone some data that they might not want to admit is in the source.
  - bornfreddy 2y ago
    If not, it is questionable if they should train on such data anyway. Also, that doesn't matter in this discussion - if you are unable to release the source under appropriate licence (for whatever reason), you should not call it Open Source.
- talldayo 2y ago
  I will steelman the idea that a tokenizer and weights are all you need for the "source" of an LLM. They are components that can be modified, redistributed and when put together, reproduce the full experience intended. If we insist upon the release of training data with Open models, you might as well kiss the idea of usable Open LLMs out the door. Most of the content in training datasets like The Pile are not licensed for redistribution in any way shape or form. It would jeopardize projects that do use transparent training data while not offering anything of value to the community compared to the training code. Republishing all training data is an absolute trap.
  - enriquto 2y ago
    > Most of the content in training datasets like The Pile are not licensed for redistribution in any way shape or form. But distributing the weights is a "form" of distribution. You can recover many items of the dataset (most easily, the outliers) by using the weights. Just because they are codified in a non-readily accessible way, does not mean that you are not distributing them. It's scary to think that "training" is becoming a thinly veiled way to strip copyright of works.

vngzs 2y ago

Agreed. The Linux kernel source contains everything you need to produce Linux kernel binaries. The llama source does not contain what you need to produce llama models. Facebook is using sleight of hand to garner favor with open model weights. Open model weights are still commendable, but it's a far cry from open-source (or even libre) software!

elromulous 2y ago

100%. With this licensing model, meta gets to reap the benefits of open source (people contributing, social cachet), without any of the real detriment (exposing secret sauce).

hbn 2y ago

Is that even something they keep on hand? Or would WANT to keep on hand? I figured they're basically sending a crawler to go nuts reading things and discard the data once they've trained on it. If that included, e.g. reading all of Github for code, I wouldn't expect them to host an entire separate read-only copy of Github because they trained on it and say "this is part of our open source model"

jdminhbg 2y ago

> Why do people keep mislabeling this as Open Source? The whole point of calling something Open Source is that the "magic sauce" of how to build something is publicly available, so I could built it myself if I have the means. But without the training data publicly available, could I train Llama 3.1 if I had the means? I don't think not releasing the commit history of a project makes it not Open Source, this seems like that to me. What's important is you can download it, run it, modify it, and re-release it. Being able to see how the sausage was made would be interesting, but I don't think Meta have to show their training data any more than they are obligated to release their planning meeting notes for React development. Edit: I think the restrictions in the license itself are good cause for saying it shouldn't be called Open Source, fwiw.

thenoblesunfish 2y ago
You don't need to have the commit history to see "how it works". ML that works well does so in huge part due to the training data used. The leading models today aren't distinguished by the way they're trained, but what they're trained on.
- jdminhbg 2y ago
  I agree that you need training data to build AI from scratch, much like you need lots of really smart developers and a mailing list and servers and stuff to build the Linux kernel from scratch. But it's not like having the training data and training code will get you the same result, in the way something like open data in science is about replicating results.
  - frabcus 2y ago
    Reproducible builds of software binaries are a thing, but they aren't routinely done. Likewise training an AI is deterministic if you do it the same each time. And slight variances lead to similar capability models.
tempfile 2y ago
For the freedom to change to be effective, a user must be given the software in a form they can modify. Can you tweak an LLM once it's built? (I genuinely don't know the answer)

unraveller 2y ago

Open-weights is not open-source, for sure, but I don't mind it being stated as an aspiration goal, the moment it is legally possible to publish a source without shooting themselves in the foot they should do it. They could release 50% of their best data but that would only stop them from attracting the best talent.

JeremyNT 2y ago

> Why do people keep mislabeling this as Open Source? I guess this is a rhetorical question, but this is a press release from Meta itself. It's just a marketing ploy, of course.

stbenjam 2y ago

InstructLab and the Granite Models from IBM seem the closest to being open source. Certainly more than whatever FB is doing here. (Disclaimer: I work for an IBM subsidiary but not on any of these products)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]