4 ms·

It is not undefined. The wrong term is just repeated in marketing campaigns, by Meta developers and those building businesses on Llama until people believe it.

by lrrna 2y ago

It is not undefined. The wrong term is just repeated in marketing campaigns, by Meta developers and those building businesses on Llama until people believe it. They could use the more correct Open Weights (which is still a euphemism because of the EULA). But they do not, and they know perfectly well what they are doing. They are the ones responsible for these discussions, but they double down and blame the true OSS people.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> It is not undefined Of course it is. Look at this thread. Look at the policy discussions around regulating AI. Hell, look at the OSI's draft definition [1]. Pretending something is rigorously defined the way you want it to be doesn't make it so. [1] https://opensource.org/deepdive/drafts/open-source-ai-definition-draft-v-0-0-9 https://opensource.org/deepdive/drafts/open-source-ai-defini...
- achrono 2y ago
  That's fallacious. It's a problem of popular use (and sales incentives), not of definition. "Open-source" represents a cluster of concepts but at the core of it there is a specific definition in spirit at least -- you can see the source for yourself, and compile it for yourself. If the source is not available, why would you want to call it open-source? Just call it something else. As simple as that.
  - halJordan 2y ago
    Definitions are not proscriptive. You cannot define a word and then coerce everyone to use that definition via your word. Definitions flow out of usage. The definition clarifies how the word is used and what people mean when they do use it. You are, in a very literal sense, doing what Orwell, et al was so desperately against by actively controlling how language is permitted to be used.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      Definitions are very often proscriptive. Communication only works when people are able to understand the language being used. Imagine how well networks would function if we didn't have documented protocols that define what things mean and how they should be understood. Nobody can "force" someone else to use the correct definitions of words, but when people disregard their established meanings they risk communication breaking down and the confusion and misunderstandings that follow. If I went around speaking nonsense or making up my own invented definitions for established words I shouldn't expect to be understood and others would be perfectly right to correct me or ask that I stick to using the well understood and documented meaning of words if I expect to have a productive conversation. It's also perfectly fair to call out people who twist the meaning of words intentionally so that they can lie, mislead, and manipulate others. When it comes to products, companies can't just say "Words can mean anything I say they do! There are no rules!" to get away with false advertising.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > when people disregard their established meanings they risk communication breaking down The meaning of words drifts in every living language. > perfectly fair to call out people who twist the meaning of words intentionally We don't have consensus around what open source means for LLMs. Facebook is pretending we do. But so is everyone in this thread claiming there is a single true definition of an open source LLM.
        autoexec 2y ago
        > The meaning of words drifts in every living language. And it does result in a lot of confusion and misunderstanding until gradually people are taught the new definitions and how they are used. There are also groups of people who deliberately and continuously redefine words because they don't want to be widely understood. Some want to develop a means to signal to and identify others within their in-group, and some want to keep outsiders from understanding them so they can speak more openly in mixed company. > We don't have consensus around what open source means for LLMs. There are people who will argue about what open source means for anything. It's okay that open source means different things to different people, but it does result in confusion in discussions until people make their definitions clear. I don't think that Facebook has earned the benefit of the doubt, in fact they've more than earned our skepticism, so it's very reasonable to see their new definition of "open source" as being nothing but marketing rhetoric at best, or at worst, as an attempt to twist our still developing consensus on what open source means into something that violates the philosophy/spirit of the open source movement.

by lrrna 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> It is not undefined Of course it is. Look at this thread. Look at the policy discussions around regulating AI. Hell, look at the OSI's draft definition [1]. Pretending something is rigorously defined the way you want it to be doesn't make it so. [1] https://opensource.org/deepdive/drafts/open-source-ai-definition-draft-v-0-0-9 https://opensource.org/deepdive/drafts/open-source-ai-defini...

achrono 2y ago
That's fallacious. It's a problem of popular use (and sales incentives), not of definition. "Open-source" represents a cluster of concepts but at the core of it there is a specific definition in spirit at least -- you can see the source for yourself, and compile it for yourself. If the source is not available, why would you want to call it open-source? Just call it something else. As simple as that.
- halJordan 2y ago
  Definitions are not proscriptive. You cannot define a word and then coerce everyone to use that definition via your word. Definitions flow out of usage. The definition clarifies how the word is used and what people mean when they do use it. You are, in a very literal sense, doing what Orwell, et al was so desperately against by actively controlling how language is permitted to be used.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    Definitions are very often proscriptive. Communication only works when people are able to understand the language being used. Imagine how well networks would function if we didn't have documented protocols that define what things mean and how they should be understood. Nobody can "force" someone else to use the correct definitions of words, but when people disregard their established meanings they risk communication breaking down and the confusion and misunderstandings that follow. If I went around speaking nonsense or making up my own invented definitions for established words I shouldn't expect to be understood and others would be perfectly right to correct me or ask that I stick to using the well understood and documented meaning of words if I expect to have a productive conversation. It's also perfectly fair to call out people who twist the meaning of words intentionally so that they can lie, mislead, and manipulate others. When it comes to products, companies can't just say "Words can mean anything I say they do! There are no rules!" to get away with false advertising.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > when people disregard their established meanings they risk communication breaking down The meaning of words drifts in every living language. > perfectly fair to call out people who twist the meaning of words intentionally We don't have consensus around what open source means for LLMs. Facebook is pretending we do. But so is everyone in this thread claiming there is a single true definition of an open source LLM.
      - autoexec 2y ago
        > The meaning of words drifts in every living language. And it does result in a lot of confusion and misunderstanding until gradually people are taught the new definitions and how they are used. There are also groups of people who deliberately and continuously redefine words because they don't want to be widely understood. Some want to develop a means to signal to and identify others within their in-group, and some want to keep outsiders from understanding them so they can speak more openly in mixed company. > We don't have consensus around what open source means for LLMs. There are people who will argue about what open source means for anything. It's okay that open source means different things to different people, but it does result in confusion in discussions until people make their definitions clear. I don't think that Facebook has earned the benefit of the doubt, in fact they've more than earned our skepticism, so it's very reasonable to see their new definition of "open source" as being nothing but marketing rhetoric at best, or at worst, as an attempt to twist our still developing consensus on what open source means into something that violates the philosophy/spirit of the open source movement.