4 ms·

We (developers and tech managers) really need to hold the line on this terminology. This is a full actual open source LLM. The usual “open inference” model is n

by wrs 2y ago

We (developers and tech managers) really need to hold the line on this terminology. This is a full actual open source LLM. The usual “open inference” model is not.

boulos 2y ago
I assume by "open inference" you mostly mean "weights available"?
- wrs 2y ago
  Usually “open source” for an LLM means you get the weights and the inference code, which I’ve started calling “open inference”. It’s certainly good and useful, but it’s not the actual source of the model. I find people get into silly arguments about the terminology because they’re focused on whether the “source” is “open” and not on what the “source” is actually the source of. “Weights available” indicates even the weights aren’t “open” in the usual software meaning of the term, as they typically come with restrictive licenses (more restrictive than copyleft or attribution).
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago
    By "source" do you mean training data?
- nickpsecurity 2y ago
  I call them open weights or just freeware like when we got only the EXE’s on Windows.
wmf 2y ago
You're not wrong, but if you come up with a definition that no one is willing to meet you're just making that definition irrelevant.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ok_dad 2y ago
  Plenty of people publish actual open source software, the definition isn’t the problem, it’s the people who misuse it that are the problem.
  - wmf 2y ago
    There's a huge difference between software and AI models. We can debate why that happens but it's a fact. Companies are willing to release open weights but virtually no one is willing to create open source models. Shaming and well actuallying has achieved nothing so far.
    - yazzku 2y ago
      There is nothing "source" about the "open source models" that companies typically release. The use of the term "open source" is deliberate marketing BS. If you want to argue there's a difference between software and a model, then don't use software terms that are already well-defined to refer to some property of the model. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
      - cassianoleal 2y ago
        It’s a lot worse than marketing BS. It’s deliberate misdirection. Essentially a con.
    - wrs 2y ago
      And I'm not arguing that they should release open source models. There's no shame in releasing an open-inference model. But I think I'm fair in saying they should use an accurate term for what they do release.
amelius 2y ago
Open source is what you would get if an academic institution would release it.
- zdragnar 2y ago
  Aren't academic institutions more likely to claim ownership of anything produced than they are to totally open source something?
  - amelius 2y ago
    I don't think so. Do you have examples?
    - zdragnar 2y ago
      My perspective mostly comes from the fact that universities will claim parents from research. For something like an AI model, I guess it could go either way. Personally, I am all in favor of increasing commercialisation of academic research, if and only if the money earned goes first and foremost to reducing tuition for students. Alas, tuition seems to ever inflate upwards. I remember when my university built a football stadium- all sorts of talking points were floated about, like how the sports programs pay for themselves, it's good for recruiting, we wouldn't get increased tuition, blah blah blah. Well, once construction finished, guess what? Students got a $400 stadium "fee" added onto enrollment each semester. Sure, it wasn't technically part of tuition, but it also wasn't optional. That alone pretty much guaranteed that I ignored every attempt from the alumni association that came begging for donations after I graduated. They run a well oiled machine, and yet somehow no matter how much money the school had, students kept paying more each year. So, yeah, I do know many (most?) research schools have commercializing offices dedicated to making money off of their research, and they have every incentive to keep doing so, whether via parents or keeping things secret to commercial partners. They just don't do anything publicly visible with the money. Edit: sorry for the stream of consciousnesses, I'm running on an hour of sleep and just realized I don't have the energy for a coherent, concise response
  - riedel 2y ago

by wrs 2y ago

We (developers and tech managers) really need to hold the line on this terminology. This is a full actual open source LLM. The usual “open inference” model is not.

boulos 2y ago

I assume by "open inference" you mostly mean "weights available"?

wrs 2y ago
Usually “open source” for an LLM means you get the weights and the inference code, which I’ve started calling “open inference”. It’s certainly good and useful, but it’s not the actual source of the model. I find people get into silly arguments about the terminology because they’re focused on whether the “source” is “open” and not on what the “source” is actually the source of. “Weights available” indicates even the weights aren’t “open” in the usual software meaning of the term, as they typically come with restrictive licenses (more restrictive than copyleft or attribution).
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  By "source" do you mean training data?
nickpsecurity 2y ago
I call them open weights or just freeware like when we got only the EXE’s on Windows.

wmf 2y ago

You're not wrong, but if you come up with a definition that no one is willing to meet you're just making that definition irrelevant.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ok_dad 2y ago
Plenty of people publish actual open source software, the definition isn’t the problem, it’s the people who misuse it that are the problem.
- wmf 2y ago
  There's a huge difference between software and AI models. We can debate why that happens but it's a fact. Companies are willing to release open weights but virtually no one is willing to create open source models. Shaming and well actuallying has achieved nothing so far.
  - yazzku 2y ago
    There is nothing "source" about the "open source models" that companies typically release. The use of the term "open source" is deliberate marketing BS. If you want to argue there's a difference between software and a model, then don't use software terms that are already well-defined to refer to some property of the model. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
    - cassianoleal 2y ago
      It’s a lot worse than marketing BS. It’s deliberate misdirection. Essentially a con.
  - wrs 2y ago
    And I'm not arguing that they should release open source models. There's no shame in releasing an open-inference model. But I think I'm fair in saying they should use an accurate term for what they do release.

amelius 2y ago

Open source is what you would get if an academic institution would release it.

zdragnar 2y ago
Aren't academic institutions more likely to claim ownership of anything produced than they are to totally open source something?
- amelius 2y ago
  I don't think so. Do you have examples?
  - zdragnar 2y ago
    My perspective mostly comes from the fact that universities will claim parents from research. For something like an AI model, I guess it could go either way. Personally, I am all in favor of increasing commercialisation of academic research, if and only if the money earned goes first and foremost to reducing tuition for students. Alas, tuition seems to ever inflate upwards. I remember when my university built a football stadium- all sorts of talking points were floated about, like how the sports programs pay for themselves, it's good for recruiting, we wouldn't get increased tuition, blah blah blah. Well, once construction finished, guess what? Students got a $400 stadium "fee" added onto enrollment each semester. Sure, it wasn't technically part of tuition, but it also wasn't optional. That alone pretty much guaranteed that I ignored every attempt from the alumni association that came begging for donations after I graduated. They run a well oiled machine, and yet somehow no matter how much money the school had, students kept paying more each year. So, yeah, I do know many (most?) research schools have commercializing offices dedicated to making money off of their research, and they have every incentive to keep doing so, whether via parents or keeping things secret to commercial partners. They just don't do anything publicly visible with the money. Edit: sorry for the stream of consciousnesses, I'm running on an hour of sleep and just realized I don't have the energy for a coherent, concise response
- riedel 2y ago