4 ms·

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 i

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.
- ghath 2y ago
  Orwell was in large part against re-definitions of existing words and the removal of words in order to reduce the basis for productive thought. Re-definition example: War is peace, freedom is slavery. Since the new euphemism for downloadable models is a re-definition, Orwell would have been 100% against it. In fact the new use of "open source" is an Orwellian term.
  - _proofs 2y ago
    could not have said it more succinctly, imo. i'm inclined to believe Orwell would have disagreed with OP, and would be asking himself -- why is there such a distinct push by those who benefit from the reframing, to reframe what Open Source means (compared to its already established meaning).
- _proofs 2y ago
  imo, this is patently not what Orwell documented and criticized via narrative example, and certainly was not what i took as his position on the evolution of naturally occurring languages, in the alluded to book -- he is a writer, and i imagine no doubt understands the importance of language and shared associations, and what it means for a language to naturally evolve its vernacular (accepted, common, or developing) -- through usage, or otherwise. Orwell highlighted and warned against the consequences of people in influential positions of power intentionally distorting the collective associations with their new, updated versions of existing words, campaigning around those distortions, and intentionally reframing associations over time such that, the associations are polarizing and obfuscated, motivated by manipulation to benefit a select few, not motivated by advancing communication -- it certainly was not an example of society and its language naturally evolving "definitions" through usage. and the novel wasn't a criticism against slang, or association/vernacular changing/evolving over time throughout collective use, nor was it a stance on requiring fixed, permanent, unwavering definitions -- it only emphasized how important it is to have consistent meaning. he just wanted to encourage people to be skeptical of those pushing for the "different" or updated meaning of words, that clearly had a well-defined context, and association, previously -- why are they so dedicated and determined to "push" for a new meaning to get accepted, when there is a previously established and well accepted meaning already. that doesn't sound natural to me, that sounds manufactured.

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.
ghath 2y ago
Orwell was in large part against re-definitions of existing words and the removal of words in order to reduce the basis for productive thought. Re-definition example: War is peace, freedom is slavery. Since the new euphemism for downloadable models is a re-definition, Orwell would have been 100% against it. In fact the new use of "open source" is an Orwellian term.
- _proofs 2y ago
  could not have said it more succinctly, imo. i'm inclined to believe Orwell would have disagreed with OP, and would be asking himself -- why is there such a distinct push by those who benefit from the reframing, to reframe what Open Source means (compared to its already established meaning).
_proofs 2y ago
imo, this is patently not what Orwell documented and criticized via narrative example, and certainly was not what i took as his position on the evolution of naturally occurring languages, in the alluded to book -- he is a writer, and i imagine no doubt understands the importance of language and shared associations, and what it means for a language to naturally evolve its vernacular (accepted, common, or developing) -- through usage, or otherwise. Orwell highlighted and warned against the consequences of people in influential positions of power intentionally distorting the collective associations with their new, updated versions of existing words, campaigning around those distortions, and intentionally reframing associations over time such that, the associations are polarizing and obfuscated, motivated by manipulation to benefit a select few, not motivated by advancing communication -- it certainly was not an example of society and its language naturally evolving "definitions" through usage. and the novel wasn't a criticism against slang, or association/vernacular changing/evolving over time throughout collective use, nor was it a stance on requiring fixed, permanent, unwavering definitions -- it only emphasized how important it is to have consistent meaning. he just wanted to encourage people to be skeptical of those pushing for the "different" or updated meaning of words, that clearly had a well-defined context, and association, previously -- why are they so dedicated and determined to "push" for a new meaning to get accepted, when there is a previously established and well accepted meaning already. that doesn't sound natural to me, that sounds manufactured.