5 ms·

This nodel is not “open source”, free to use maybe.

nomel 2y ago
I really wish people would use "open weights" rather than "open source". It's precise and obvious, and leaves an accurate descriptor for actual "open source" models, where the source and methods that that generate the artifact, that is the weights, is open.
- fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
  As far as I know it's not just the weights. it's everything but the dataset. So the code used to generate the weights is also open source.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    In other words, it's everything except the one thing that actually matters.
    - OrangeMusic 2y ago
      Maybe, but it doesn't mean it's not open source.
      - TeMPOraL 2y ago
        The things that don't matter are, the thing that does isn't. Together, they can hardly be called open source.
    - kibibu 2y ago
      The dataset is likely absolutely jam packed with copyrighted material that cannot be distributed.
  - nomel 2y ago
    Is there any other case where "open source" is used for something that can't be reproduced? Seems like a new term is required, in the concept of "open source, non-reproducible artifacts". I suppose language changes. I just prefer it changes towards being more precise, not less.
    - xu_ituairo 2y ago
      This feels somewhat analogous to games like Quake being open-sourced though still needing the user to provide the original game data files.
      - TeMPOraL 2y ago
        But games like Quake are not "open source". They have been open-sourced, specifically the executable parts were, without the assets. This is usually spelled out clearly as the process happen. In terms of functional role, if we're to compare the models to open-sourced games, then all that's been open-sourced is the trivial[0] bit of code that does the inference. Maybe a more adequate comparison would be a SoC running a Linux kernel with a big NVidia or Qualcomm binary blob in the middle of it? Sure, the Linux kernel is open source, but we wouldn't call the SoC "open source", because all that makes it what it is (software-side) is hidden in a proprietary binary. -- [0] - In the sense that there's not much of it, and it's possible to reproduce from papers.
    - drexlspivey 2y ago
      No, the term is fine, “source” in “open source” refers to source code. A dataset by definition is not source code. Stop changing the meaning of words.
      - TeMPOraL 2y ago
        A dataset very much is the source code. It's the part that gets turned into the program through an automated process (training is equivalent to compilation).
    - fishermanbill 2y ago
- gantrol 2y ago
  Training a model is like automatic programming, and the key of it is having a well-organized dataset. If some "opensource" model just have the model and training methods but no dataset, it’s like some repo which released an executable file with a detailed design doc. Where is the source code? Do it yourself, please. NOTE: I understand the difficulty of open-sourcing datasets. I'm just saying that the term "opensource" is getting diluted.
- lolinder 2y ago
  It's not precise. People who want to use "open weights" instead of "open source" are focusing on the wrong thing. The weights are, for all practical purposes, source code in their own right. The GPL defines "source code" as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". Almost no one would be capable of reproducing them even if given the source + data. At the same time, the weights are exactly what you need for the one type of modification that's within reach of most people: fine-tuning. That they didn't release the surrounding code that produced this "source" isn't that much different than a company releasing a library but not their whole software stack. I'd argue that "source" vs "weights" is a dangerous distraction from the far more insidious word in "open source" when used to refer to the Llama license: "open". The Llama 3.1 license [0] specifically forbids its use by very large organizations, by militaries, and by nuclear industries. It also contains a long list of forbidden use cases. This specific list sounds very reasonable to me on its face, but having a list of specific groups of people or fields of endeavor who are banned from participating runs counter to the spirit of open source and opens up the possibility that new "open" licenses come out with different lists of forbidden uses that sound less reasonable. To be clear, I'm totally fine with them having those terms in their license, but I'm uncomfortable with setting the precedent of embracing the word "open" for it. Llama is "nearly-open source". That's good enough for me to be able to use it for what I want, but the word "open" is the one that should be called out. "Source" is fine. [0] https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models/blob/main/models/llama3_1/LICENSE https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models/blob/main/models/...
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    Do the costs really matter here? "Weights" are "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" in the same sense compiled binary code would be, if for some reason no one could afford to recompile a program from sources. Fine-tuning and LoRAs and toying with the runtime are all directly equivalent to DLL injection[0], trainers[1], and various other techniques used to tweak a compiled binary before or at runtime, including plain taking at the executable with a hex editor. Just because that's all anyone except the model vendor is able to do, doesn't merit calling the models "open source", much like no one would call binary-only software "open source" just because reverse engineering is a thing. No, the weights are just artifacts. The source is the dataset and the training code (and possibly the training parameters). This isn't fundamentally different from running an advanced solver for a year, to find a way to make your program 100 byes smaller so it can fit on a Tamagochi. The resulting binary is magic, can't be reproduced without spending $$$$ on compute for th solver, but it is not open source. The source code is the bit that (produced the original binary that) went into the optimizer. Calling these models "open source" is a runaway misuse of the term, and in some cases, a sleigh of hand. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLL_injection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLL_injection [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainer_(games) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainer_(games) - a type of programs popular some 20 years ago, used to cheat at, or mod, single-player games, by keeping track of and directly modifying the memory of the game process. Could be as simple as continuously resetting the ammo counter, or as complex as injecting assembly to add new UI elements.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  > where the source and methods that that generate the artifact, that is the weights, is open. When you require the same thing in software, namely the whole stack to run the software in question to be open source, we don't call the license open source.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    Nope. Those model releases only open source the equivalent of "run.bat" that does some trivial things and calls into a binary blob. We wouldn't call such a program "open source". Hell, in case of the models, "the whole stack to run the software" already is open source. Literally everything except the actual sources - the datasets and the build scripts (code doing the training) - is available openly. This is almost a literal inverse of "open source", thus shouldn't be called "open source".
votepaunchy 2y ago
It’s not even free to use. There are commercial restrictions.

I really wish people would use "open weights" rather than "open source". It's precise and obvious, and leaves an accurate descriptor for actual "open source" models, where the source and methods that that generate the artifact, that is the weights, is open.

fngjdflmdflg 2y ago
As far as I know it's not just the weights. it's everything but the dataset. So the code used to generate the weights is also open source.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  In other words, it's everything except the one thing that actually matters.
  - OrangeMusic 2y ago
    Maybe, but it doesn't mean it's not open source.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      The things that don't matter are, the thing that does isn't. Together, they can hardly be called open source.
  - kibibu 2y ago
    The dataset is likely absolutely jam packed with copyrighted material that cannot be distributed.
- nomel 2y ago
  Is there any other case where "open source" is used for something that can't be reproduced? Seems like a new term is required, in the concept of "open source, non-reproducible artifacts". I suppose language changes. I just prefer it changes towards being more precise, not less.
  - xu_ituairo 2y ago
    This feels somewhat analogous to games like Quake being open-sourced though still needing the user to provide the original game data files.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      But games like Quake are not "open source". They have been open-sourced, specifically the executable parts were, without the assets. This is usually spelled out clearly as the process happen. In terms of functional role, if we're to compare the models to open-sourced games, then all that's been open-sourced is the trivial[0] bit of code that does the inference. Maybe a more adequate comparison would be a SoC running a Linux kernel with a big NVidia or Qualcomm binary blob in the middle of it? Sure, the Linux kernel is open source, but we wouldn't call the SoC "open source", because all that makes it what it is (software-side) is hidden in a proprietary binary. -- [0] - In the sense that there's not much of it, and it's possible to reproduce from papers.
  - drexlspivey 2y ago
    No, the term is fine, “source” in “open source” refers to source code. A dataset by definition is not source code. Stop changing the meaning of words.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      A dataset very much is the source code. It's the part that gets turned into the program through an automated process (training is equivalent to compilation).
  - fishermanbill 2y ago
gantrol 2y ago
Training a model is like automatic programming, and the key of it is having a well-organized dataset. If some "opensource" model just have the model and training methods but no dataset, it’s like some repo which released an executable file with a detailed design doc. Where is the source code? Do it yourself, please. NOTE: I understand the difficulty of open-sourcing datasets. I'm just saying that the term "opensource" is getting diluted.
lolinder 2y ago
It's not precise. People who want to use "open weights" instead of "open source" are focusing on the wrong thing. The weights are, for all practical purposes, source code in their own right. The GPL defines "source code" as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". Almost no one would be capable of reproducing them even if given the source + data. At the same time, the weights are exactly what you need for the one type of modification that's within reach of most people: fine-tuning. That they didn't release the surrounding code that produced this "source" isn't that much different than a company releasing a library but not their whole software stack. I'd argue that "source" vs "weights" is a dangerous distraction from the far more insidious word in "open source" when used to refer to the Llama license: "open". The Llama 3.1 license [0] specifically forbids its use by very large organizations, by militaries, and by nuclear industries. It also contains a long list of forbidden use cases. This specific list sounds very reasonable to me on its face, but having a list of specific groups of people or fields of endeavor who are banned from participating runs counter to the spirit of open source and opens up the possibility that new "open" licenses come out with different lists of forbidden uses that sound less reasonable. To be clear, I'm totally fine with them having those terms in their license, but I'm uncomfortable with setting the precedent of embracing the word "open" for it. Llama is "nearly-open source". That's good enough for me to be able to use it for what I want, but the word "open" is the one that should be called out. "Source" is fine. [0] https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models/blob/main/models/llama3_1/LICENSE https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models/blob/main/models/...
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Do the costs really matter here? "Weights" are "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" in the same sense compiled binary code would be, if for some reason no one could afford to recompile a program from sources. Fine-tuning and LoRAs and toying with the runtime are all directly equivalent to DLL injection[0], trainers[1], and various other techniques used to tweak a compiled binary before or at runtime, including plain taking at the executable with a hex editor. Just because that's all anyone except the model vendor is able to do, doesn't merit calling the models "open source", much like no one would call binary-only software "open source" just because reverse engineering is a thing. No, the weights are just artifacts. The source is the dataset and the training code (and possibly the training parameters). This isn't fundamentally different from running an advanced solver for a year, to find a way to make your program 100 byes smaller so it can fit on a Tamagochi. The resulting binary is magic, can't be reproduced without spending $$$$ on compute for th solver, but it is not open source. The source code is the bit that (produced the original binary that) went into the optimizer. Calling these models "open source" is a runaway misuse of the term, and in some cases, a sleigh of hand. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLL_injection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLL_injection [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainer_(games) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainer_(games) - a type of programs popular some 20 years ago, used to cheat at, or mod, single-player games, by keeping track of and directly modifying the memory of the game process. Could be as simple as continuously resetting the ammo counter, or as complex as injecting assembly to add new UI elements.
llm_trw 2y ago
> where the source and methods that that generate the artifact, that is the weights, is open. When you require the same thing in software, namely the whole stack to run the software in question to be open source, we don't call the license open source.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Nope. Those model releases only open source the equivalent of "run.bat" that does some trivial things and calls into a binary blob. We wouldn't call such a program "open source". Hell, in case of the models, "the whole stack to run the software" already is open source. Literally everything except the actual sources - the datasets and the build scripts (code doing the training) - is available openly. This is almost a literal inverse of "open source", thus shouldn't be called "open source".

votepaunchy 2y ago

It’s not even free to use. There are commercial restrictions.