5 ms·

You shouldn't redefine a term if it doesn't apply. Just make a new term. This is how we ended up with the MiB vs. MB confusion where some systems incorrectly us

You shouldn't redefine a term if it doesn't apply. Just make a new term. This is how we ended up with the MiB vs. MB confusion where some systems incorrectly use the latter, making it effectively useless because the reader doesn't know if they really meant MB or actually meant MiB instead.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> shouldn't redefine a term if it doesn't apply. Just make a new term Maybe. But this isn't how language works. Particularly not English. A corollary of No true Scotsman [1] is the person administering that purity test rarely gets to define a Scotsman. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
- lern_too_spel 2y ago
  That doesn't mean that we, the people who should know better, should contribute to making words lose meaning.
  - lostmsu 2y ago
    Why not?
    - lern_too_spel 2y ago
      Because it makes communication harder. The whole point of words is to communicate. If somebody releases a model that is actually open source, they would have no way to describe it. Then the bastardized meaning of open source could creep into other contexts until it is entirely meaningless.
      - lostmsu 2y ago
        Only in the short term. Then everyone gets used to the new status quo, and all is good, or even better because one doesn't have to make up entirely new terminology.
        lern_too_spel 2y ago
        In the long term, it's better to have new terminology, so we can differentiate between open source and open weight models. Open weight is unambiguous, and the meaning is clear.
        lostmsu 2y ago
        No, it is not. When you see a MIT-licensed repository, do you call a screenshot, icons or other image assets "open pictures"? That would be laughable. We don't need non-ambiguity outside of context. Second, the purism argument is just silly. Is GCC not open source because there's no LaTeX for IA-32 manual, and its x86 machine instruction generator is clearly distilled from it?
        lern_too_spel 2y ago
        The source for GCC is open. Open source does not mean that everything it depends on is also open source. Nobody uses open source in that way, and you are deliberately misusing the term in order to justify further misuse.
        lostmsu 2y ago
        Funny you omitted the picture argument. Even your reply to this one lacks nuance that I brought up. Where do you draw a line for the things that need "source" vs the ones that don't?
- ghath 2y ago
  This is not an organic use of an altered meaning. The term is imposed by huge corporations who force it on their developers and everyone who wants to get funding in the Llama ecosystem. It has nothing to do with natural language evolution.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > an organic use of an altered meaning. The term is imposed by huge corporations who force it LLMs were entirely proprietary. In that context, Facebook put forward a foundational model one can run on their own hardware and called it open. At the time, nobody had defined what an open-source LLM was. People came out to say Llama wasn't open. But nobody rigorously proposed a practical definition. The OSI has started, but they're being honest about it being a draft. In the meantime, people are organically discussing open versus proprietary models in a variety of contexts, most of which aren't particularly concerned with the OSI's definitions.
- _proofs 2y ago
  you are wildly conflating the difference between a naturally occurring evolution in a word's usage and meaning (ie: slang becomes canon becomes slang cycle), and intentionally misusing an existing, established meaning, and then pushing for that misuse (and misunderstanding) to become canon. one is pragmatic, ergonomic, and motivated by advancing relationships between communicating persons in a naturally occurring way because the common denominator is a quick race to mutual understanding. the other is manufactured, and not motivated by relation and advancing communication, but by how the shift in understanding benefits the one pushing for it, and often involves telling people how to think but is doing it through subversion.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > conflating the difference between a naturally occurring evolution in a word's usage and meaning (ie: slang becomes canon becomes slang cycle), and intentionally misusing an existing, established meaning Sort of. I'm claiming the meaning of open source when applied to AI is unsettled. There are guiding principles that seem to imply Llama is not open source. But merely pointing that out without offering a practical alternative definition almost guarantees that the intentionally-misused definition Facebook is promulgating becomes the accepted one.
    - _proofs 2y ago
      fair point, and i think i can appreciate more where you are coming from now. however i do not think the alternatives need to be proposed at this moment in time because right now, the discussion is about holding people who intentionally reframe and misuse words accountable for their "double-speak" given the term's precedent. conventionally, and by historical collective understanding, it is not open source. i get you are attempting to highlight AI perhaps means this should be a definition reconsidered, but the irony here is the message itself is distorted due to the conflation, hence why consistency in language to me seems self-evident as a net good. there is most certainly a difference between naturally occurring (which our brains reeeally support in terms of language development and symbolic communication), and manufactured (and therefore pushing for a word, or more aptly, a perspective's adoption). i'd rather words manifest through a common need to reach mutual understanding as a means to relate to one another and this world, rather than having someone who stands to benefit from the change in definition, tell me what it means, and then expect me to just "agree", while they campaign around that and pretend it's the established definition (and not actually their own revised version). it'd be one thing if people who were throwing the term around so loosely would be transparent: "Hey, we know this isn't historically what everyone means by OSS, but... that's OSS your OSS this is OSS, everything is OSS instead a lot of these narratives are standing on the shoulders of the original definition and context of what it means to be OSS, and therefore the pedigree, implications (and whatever else for PR spin/influence), and simultaneously diluting what it means in the process as the definition gets further and further obfuscated by those influencing the change, and its pedigree is relied on as a distraction away from what is being done, or actually said.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> shouldn't redefine a term if it doesn't apply. Just make a new term Maybe. But this isn't how language works. Particularly not English. A corollary of No true Scotsman [1] is the person administering that purity test rarely gets to define a Scotsman. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

lern_too_spel 2y ago
That doesn't mean that we, the people who should know better, should contribute to making words lose meaning.
- lostmsu 2y ago
  Why not?
  - lern_too_spel 2y ago
    Because it makes communication harder. The whole point of words is to communicate. If somebody releases a model that is actually open source, they would have no way to describe it. Then the bastardized meaning of open source could creep into other contexts until it is entirely meaningless.
    - lostmsu 2y ago
      Only in the short term. Then everyone gets used to the new status quo, and all is good, or even better because one doesn't have to make up entirely new terminology.
      - lern_too_spel 2y ago
        In the long term, it's better to have new terminology, so we can differentiate between open source and open weight models. Open weight is unambiguous, and the meaning is clear.
        lostmsu 2y ago
        No, it is not. When you see a MIT-licensed repository, do you call a screenshot, icons or other image assets "open pictures"? That would be laughable. We don't need non-ambiguity outside of context. Second, the purism argument is just silly. Is GCC not open source because there's no LaTeX for IA-32 manual, and its x86 machine instruction generator is clearly distilled from it?
        lern_too_spel 2y ago
        The source for GCC is open. Open source does not mean that everything it depends on is also open source. Nobody uses open source in that way, and you are deliberately misusing the term in order to justify further misuse.
        lostmsu 2y ago
        Funny you omitted the picture argument. Even your reply to this one lacks nuance that I brought up. Where do you draw a line for the things that need "source" vs the ones that don't?
ghath 2y ago
This is not an organic use of an altered meaning. The term is imposed by huge corporations who force it on their developers and everyone who wants to get funding in the Llama ecosystem. It has nothing to do with natural language evolution.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > an organic use of an altered meaning. The term is imposed by huge corporations who force it LLMs were entirely proprietary. In that context, Facebook put forward a foundational model one can run on their own hardware and called it open. At the time, nobody had defined what an open-source LLM was. People came out to say Llama wasn't open. But nobody rigorously proposed a practical definition. The OSI has started, but they're being honest about it being a draft. In the meantime, people are organically discussing open versus proprietary models in a variety of contexts, most of which aren't particularly concerned with the OSI's definitions.
_proofs 2y ago
you are wildly conflating the difference between a naturally occurring evolution in a word's usage and meaning (ie: slang becomes canon becomes slang cycle), and intentionally misusing an existing, established meaning, and then pushing for that misuse (and misunderstanding) to become canon. one is pragmatic, ergonomic, and motivated by advancing relationships between communicating persons in a naturally occurring way because the common denominator is a quick race to mutual understanding. the other is manufactured, and not motivated by relation and advancing communication, but by how the shift in understanding benefits the one pushing for it, and often involves telling people how to think but is doing it through subversion.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > conflating the difference between a naturally occurring evolution in a word's usage and meaning (ie: slang becomes canon becomes slang cycle), and intentionally misusing an existing, established meaning Sort of. I'm claiming the meaning of open source when applied to AI is unsettled. There are guiding principles that seem to imply Llama is not open source. But merely pointing that out without offering a practical alternative definition almost guarantees that the intentionally-misused definition Facebook is promulgating becomes the accepted one.
  - _proofs 2y ago
    fair point, and i think i can appreciate more where you are coming from now. however i do not think the alternatives need to be proposed at this moment in time because right now, the discussion is about holding people who intentionally reframe and misuse words accountable for their "double-speak" given the term's precedent. conventionally, and by historical collective understanding, it is not open source. i get you are attempting to highlight AI perhaps means this should be a definition reconsidered, but the irony here is the message itself is distorted due to the conflation, hence why consistency in language to me seems self-evident as a net good. there is most certainly a difference between naturally occurring (which our brains reeeally support in terms of language development and symbolic communication), and manufactured (and therefore pushing for a word, or more aptly, a perspective's adoption). i'd rather words manifest through a common need to reach mutual understanding as a means to relate to one another and this world, rather than having someone who stands to benefit from the change in definition, tell me what it means, and then expect me to just "agree", while they campaign around that and pretend it's the established definition (and not actually their own revised version). it'd be one thing if people who were throwing the term around so loosely would be transparent: "Hey, we know this isn't historically what everyone means by OSS, but... that's OSS your OSS this is OSS, everything is OSS instead a lot of these narratives are standing on the shoulders of the original definition and context of what it means to be OSS, and therefore the pedigree, implications (and whatever else for PR spin/influence), and simultaneously diluting what it means in the process as the definition gets further and further obfuscated by those influencing the change, and its pedigree is relied on as a distraction away from what is being done, or actually said.