2 ms·
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
by 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 agoOnly 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 agoIn 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 agoNo, 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 agoThe 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 agoFunny 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?