7 ms·

You also might want to "clarify" that it is not open source (and neither are any of the other "open source" models). If you want to call it something, try "open

You also might want to "clarify" that it is not open source (and neither are any of the other "open source" models). If you want to call it something, try "open weights", although the usage restrictions make even that a HUGE FUCKING STRETCH. Also, everybody should remember that these models are not copyrightable and you should never agree to any license for them...

astromaniak 2y ago
> it is not open source It would be nice here if you give some examples of what you call open source model. Please ;) Because the impression is that these things do not exist, it's just a dream which does not deserve such a nice term..
- Hizonner 2y ago
  As far as I know, none have been released. And it doesn't even really make sense, because, as I said, the models aren't copyrightable to begin with and therefore aren't licensable either. However, plenty of open source software exists. The fact that open source models don't exist doesn't excuse attempts to falsely claim the prestige of the phrase "open source".
  - kube-system 2y ago
    > the models aren't copyrightable to begin with What criteria for copyright protection are they missing?
  - astromaniak 2y ago
    > As far as I know, none have been released. I can tell you a secret. What you call 'open source' models are impossible. Because massive randomness is a part of training process. They are not reproducible. Having everything you cannot even tell if the given model was trained on the given dataset. Copyright is a different thing. And a bad news, what's coming is even worst. Those will be the whole things with self awareness and personal experience. They can be copied, but not reproduced. More over, it's hard or almost impossible to detect if something undeclared was planted in their 'minds'. All together means 'open source' model in strict interpretation is a myth, great idea which happen to be not. Like Turing test. > However, plenty of open source software exists. Attempt to switch topic detected. PS: as for that massive downvote, I even wasn't rude, don't care. This account will be abandoned soon regardless, like all before and after.
  - jillesvangurp 2y ago
    > models aren't copyrightable to begin with You are wrong about that. It's a file with numbers. Which makes it a database or dataset and very much protected by copyright. That's why licenses are needed. For the phone book, things like open street maps, and indeed AI models. > The fact that open source models don't exist The fact that many people (myself included) routinely download and use models distributed under OSI approved licenses (Apache V2, MIT, etc.) makes that statement verifiably wrong. And yes, I do check the license of stuff that I use as I work with companies that care about such matters. > As far as I know ... Now you know better.
    - Hizonner 2y ago
      > Which makes it a database or dataset and very much protected by copyright. Not every collection of numbers is a database, and a database is not the same thing as a dataset. Databases have limited copyright-like protection in some places. Under TRIPS, that extends to only databases that are "creative by virtue of the selection or arrangement of their contents" or something along those lines. In the US they talk specifically about curation. ML models do not meet either requirement by any reasonable interpretation. > The fact that many people (myself included) routinely download and use models distributed under OSI approved licenses (Apache V2, MIT, etc.) makes that statement verifiably wrong. The "source code" of an ML model is most reasonably interpreted as including all of the training data, which are never, ever available. Now you know better. [On edit: By the way, the people creating these works had better hope they're outside copyright, because if not, each one of them is a derivative work of (at least some large and almost impossible to identify subset of) its training data, so they need licenses from all the copyright holders of that training material, which few of them have or can get.]
      - kube-system 2y ago
        If we stop unnecessarily anthropomorphizing software, I think it is plainly obvious these are derivative works. You take the training material, run it through a piece of software, and it produces an output based on that input. Just because the black box in the middle is big and fancy doesn't mean that somehow the output isn't a result of the input. However, transformativeness is a factor in whether or not there is a fair-use exception for the derivative work. And these models are highly transformative, so this is a strong argument for their fair-use.
- simonw 2y ago
  I'm personally comfortable calling a model "open source" if the license is compatible with the https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/ definition. The Llama models aren't. Some of the Mistral models are (the Apache 2 ones). Microsoft Phi-3 is - it's MIT.
  - dagaci 2y ago
    Open source must include source material so that another can reproduce that the model. I would expect that to be a minimum.
    - simonw 2y ago
      I agree, but that can't happen with the vast majority of these models because they're trained on unlicensed data so they can't slap an open source license on the training data and distribute it. I've decided to draw my personal line at Open Source Initiative compliance for the license they release the model itself under. I respect the opinion that it's not truly open source unless they release the training data as well, but I've decided not to make that part of my own personal litmus test here. My reasoning is that knowing something is "open source" helps me decide what I legally can or cannot do with it when building my own software. Not having access to the training data downs affect my legal rights, it just affects my ability to recompile myself. And I don't have millions of dollars of GPUs so that isn't so important to me, personally.
      - Hizonner 2y ago
        > that can't happen with the vast majority of these models because they're trained on unlicensed data Tough beans? There's lots of actual software that can't be open source because it embeds stuff with incompatible restrictions, but nobody tries to redefine "open source" because of that. ... and, on a vaguely similar-flavored note, you'd better hope that the models you're using end up found to be noninfringing or fair use or something with respect to those "unlicensed data", because otherwise you're in a world of hurt. It's actually a lot easier to argue that the models aren't copyrightable than it is to argue that they're not derivative of the input. > I've decided to draw my personal line at Open Source Initiative compliance for the license they release the model itself under. You're allowed to draw your personal line about what you'll use anywhere you want, but that doesn't mean that you should try to redefine "open source" or support anybody who does.
Morphiak 2y ago
A personal bugbear is the AI fascination with calling themselves open source, virtue signalling I guess. Open weights is exactly right. Source code and arguably more important datasets are both required to replicate the work, which is more in the spirit of open source (and science). I think Meta is especially egregious here, given their history. Never underestimate the value of getting hordes of unpaid workers to refine your product. (See also React, others)
- andybak 2y ago
  > virtue signalling I'd prefer "false advertising" - it's more direct and without the culture war baggage.
  - seanw444 2y ago
    "Open source" is perceived as a virtue, and their claim is false. Thus false virtue claim. Or... virtue signaling.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Indeed. The data is the main "information source" from which the model is trained.
andymcsherry 2y ago
I get the sentiment, but one of their models, albeit the worst one, is licensed under Apache without usage restrictions. The source to run the models is also open source.
astrange 2y ago
It's certainly not true that models are not copyrightable; databases have copyright protection if creativity was involved in creating them. That said, I don't think outputs of the model are derivative works of it, any more than the model is a derivative of its training data, so it's not clear to me they can actually enforce what you do with them.
- filleokus 2y ago
  > It's certainly not true that models are not copyrightable; databases have copyright protection if creativity was involved in creating them. Are you talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right or plain old copyright? I'm no IP lawyer, but I've always thought that copyright put "requirements" on the artefact (i.e the threshold of originality), not the process. In my jurisdiction we have database rights, meaning that you get IP protections for the artefact based on the work put into the process. For example a database of distances between adress pairs or something is probably not copyrightable, but can be protected under database rights if enough work was done to compile the data. EDIT: Saw in another place in thread speaking about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow doctrine, relates to Database rights. (Neither of which notably are not applicable in the U.S)
  - kube-system 2y ago
    These models are a product of much more creativity than simply a list of phone numbers in a phone book. I don't see how they wouldn't meet the modicum of creativity required for US copyright protection.
    - Hizonner 2y ago
      The software that creates the model is the product of creativity. The model itself is the product of mechanically applying that software to datasets that are (a) assembled with minimal, if any creativity, and (b) definitely not assembled with any eye to the specific form of the resulting model. The whole point is to get the software to form the model without you having to worry about what the result is going to look like. So you can't turn around and claim that the model is a creative work because of the choice of training data. The only thing that's really specified about the model itself is its architecture, which is (1) dictated by function, and (2) usually deeply stereotyped.
DHolzer 2y ago
When I read "open source" i thought they actually are doing open source instead of "open weights" this time. Surely they would expect to be called out on hackernews if they label it incorrectly... Thanks for pointing that out @Hizonener

astromaniak 2y ago

> it is not open source It would be nice here if you give some examples of what you call open source model. Please ;) Because the impression is that these things do not exist, it's just a dream which does not deserve such a nice term..

Hizonner 2y ago
As far as I know, none have been released. And it doesn't even really make sense, because, as I said, the models aren't copyrightable to begin with and therefore aren't licensable either. However, plenty of open source software exists. The fact that open source models don't exist doesn't excuse attempts to falsely claim the prestige of the phrase "open source".
- kube-system 2y ago
  > the models aren't copyrightable to begin with What criteria for copyright protection are they missing?
- astromaniak 2y ago
  > As far as I know, none have been released. I can tell you a secret. What you call 'open source' models are impossible. Because massive randomness is a part of training process. They are not reproducible. Having everything you cannot even tell if the given model was trained on the given dataset. Copyright is a different thing. And a bad news, what's coming is even worst. Those will be the whole things with self awareness and personal experience. They can be copied, but not reproduced. More over, it's hard or almost impossible to detect if something undeclared was planted in their 'minds'. All together means 'open source' model in strict interpretation is a myth, great idea which happen to be not. Like Turing test. > However, plenty of open source software exists. Attempt to switch topic detected. PS: as for that massive downvote, I even wasn't rude, don't care. This account will be abandoned soon regardless, like all before and after.
- jillesvangurp 2y ago
  > models aren't copyrightable to begin with You are wrong about that. It's a file with numbers. Which makes it a database or dataset and very much protected by copyright. That's why licenses are needed. For the phone book, things like open street maps, and indeed AI models. > The fact that open source models don't exist The fact that many people (myself included) routinely download and use models distributed under OSI approved licenses (Apache V2, MIT, etc.) makes that statement verifiably wrong. And yes, I do check the license of stuff that I use as I work with companies that care about such matters. > As far as I know ... Now you know better.
  - Hizonner 2y ago
    > Which makes it a database or dataset and very much protected by copyright. Not every collection of numbers is a database, and a database is not the same thing as a dataset. Databases have limited copyright-like protection in some places. Under TRIPS, that extends to only databases that are "creative by virtue of the selection or arrangement of their contents" or something along those lines. In the US they talk specifically about curation. ML models do not meet either requirement by any reasonable interpretation. > The fact that many people (myself included) routinely download and use models distributed under OSI approved licenses (Apache V2, MIT, etc.) makes that statement verifiably wrong. The "source code" of an ML model is most reasonably interpreted as including all of the training data, which are never, ever available. Now you know better. [On edit: By the way, the people creating these works had better hope they're outside copyright, because if not, each one of them is a derivative work of (at least some large and almost impossible to identify subset of) its training data, so they need licenses from all the copyright holders of that training material, which few of them have or can get.]
    - kube-system 2y ago
      If we stop unnecessarily anthropomorphizing software, I think it is plainly obvious these are derivative works. You take the training material, run it through a piece of software, and it produces an output based on that input. Just because the black box in the middle is big and fancy doesn't mean that somehow the output isn't a result of the input. However, transformativeness is a factor in whether or not there is a fair-use exception for the derivative work. And these models are highly transformative, so this is a strong argument for their fair-use.
simonw 2y ago
I'm personally comfortable calling a model "open source" if the license is compatible with the https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/ definition. The Llama models aren't. Some of the Mistral models are (the Apache 2 ones). Microsoft Phi-3 is - it's MIT.
- dagaci 2y ago
  Open source must include source material so that another can reproduce that the model. I would expect that to be a minimum.
  - simonw 2y ago
    I agree, but that can't happen with the vast majority of these models because they're trained on unlicensed data so they can't slap an open source license on the training data and distribute it. I've decided to draw my personal line at Open Source Initiative compliance for the license they release the model itself under. I respect the opinion that it's not truly open source unless they release the training data as well, but I've decided not to make that part of my own personal litmus test here. My reasoning is that knowing something is "open source" helps me decide what I legally can or cannot do with it when building my own software. Not having access to the training data downs affect my legal rights, it just affects my ability to recompile myself. And I don't have millions of dollars of GPUs so that isn't so important to me, personally.
    - Hizonner 2y ago
      > that can't happen with the vast majority of these models because they're trained on unlicensed data Tough beans? There's lots of actual software that can't be open source because it embeds stuff with incompatible restrictions, but nobody tries to redefine "open source" because of that. ... and, on a vaguely similar-flavored note, you'd better hope that the models you're using end up found to be noninfringing or fair use or something with respect to those "unlicensed data", because otherwise you're in a world of hurt. It's actually a lot easier to argue that the models aren't copyrightable than it is to argue that they're not derivative of the input. > I've decided to draw my personal line at Open Source Initiative compliance for the license they release the model itself under. You're allowed to draw your personal line about what you'll use anywhere you want, but that doesn't mean that you should try to redefine "open source" or support anybody who does.

Morphiak 2y ago

A personal bugbear is the AI fascination with calling themselves open source, virtue signalling I guess. Open weights is exactly right. Source code and arguably more important datasets are both required to replicate the work, which is more in the spirit of open source (and science). I think Meta is especially egregious here, given their history. Never underestimate the value of getting hordes of unpaid workers to refine your product. (See also React, others)

andybak 2y ago
> virtue signalling I'd prefer "false advertising" - it's more direct and without the culture war baggage.
- seanw444 2y ago
  "Open source" is perceived as a virtue, and their claim is false. Thus false virtue claim. Or... virtue signaling.
HPsquared 2y ago
Indeed. The data is the main "information source" from which the model is trained.

andymcsherry 2y ago

I get the sentiment, but one of their models, albeit the worst one, is licensed under Apache without usage restrictions. The source to run the models is also open source.

astrange 2y ago

It's certainly not true that models are not copyrightable; databases have copyright protection if creativity was involved in creating them. That said, I don't think outputs of the model are derivative works of it, any more than the model is a derivative of its training data, so it's not clear to me they can actually enforce what you do with them.

filleokus 2y ago
> It's certainly not true that models are not copyrightable; databases have copyright protection if creativity was involved in creating them. Are you talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right or plain old copyright? I'm no IP lawyer, but I've always thought that copyright put "requirements" on the artefact (i.e the threshold of originality), not the process. In my jurisdiction we have database rights, meaning that you get IP protections for the artefact based on the work put into the process. For example a database of distances between adress pairs or something is probably not copyrightable, but can be protected under database rights if enough work was done to compile the data. EDIT: Saw in another place in thread speaking about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow doctrine, relates to Database rights. (Neither of which notably are not applicable in the U.S)
- kube-system 2y ago
  These models are a product of much more creativity than simply a list of phone numbers in a phone book. I don't see how they wouldn't meet the modicum of creativity required for US copyright protection.
  - Hizonner 2y ago
    The software that creates the model is the product of creativity. The model itself is the product of mechanically applying that software to datasets that are (a) assembled with minimal, if any creativity, and (b) definitely not assembled with any eye to the specific form of the resulting model. The whole point is to get the software to form the model without you having to worry about what the result is going to look like. So you can't turn around and claim that the model is a creative work because of the choice of training data. The only thing that's really specified about the model itself is its architecture, which is (1) dictated by function, and (2) usually deeply stereotyped.

DHolzer 2y ago

When I read "open source" i thought they actually are doing open source instead of "open weights" this time. Surely they would expect to be called out on hackernews if they label it incorrectly... Thanks for pointing that out @Hizonener