3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoPlenty 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 agoThere'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 agoThere 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 agoIt’s a lot worse than marketing BS. It’s deliberate misdirection. Essentially a con.
- wrs 2y agoAnd 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.