> its really interesting to contrast this "outsider" definition of open ai with people with real money at stake I guess this is a question of what we want out

> its really interesting to contrast this "outsider" definition of open ai with people with real money at stake I guess this is a question of what we want out of "open source". Companies want to make money. Their asset is data, access to customers, hardware and integration. They want to "open source" models, so that other people improve their models for free, and then they can take them back, and sell them, or build something profitable using them. The idea is that, like with other software, eventually, the open source version becomes the best, or just as good as the commercial ones, and companies that build on top no longer have to pay for those, and can use the open source ones. But if what you want out of "open source" is open knowledge, peeking at how something is built, and being able to take that and fork it for your own. Well, you kind of need the data. And your goal in this case is more freedom, using things that you have full access to inspect, alter, repair, modify, etc. To me, both are valid, we just need a name for one and a name for the other, and then we can clearly filter for what we are looking for.