3 ms·

Definitions are very often proscriptive. Communication only works when people are able to understand the language being used. Imagine how well networks would fu

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.

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.