4 ms·

I’ll go ahead and call this a false equivalency because the amount of work required to get “pretty close” to compiling a binary that looks something like the Li

I’ll go ahead and call this a false equivalency because the amount of work required to get “pretty close” to compiling a binary that looks something like the Linux kernel is pretty achievable. Not so for these models. I know my way around gcc and llvm enough to be able to compile something that will work mostly like the Linux kernel in some reasonable amount of time. Now I know it seems like I’m taking the opposite side of my original take here but come on - you can’t really genuinely believe that because I can’t produce a byte for byte representation of the Linux kernel immediately even if it behaves 99.999% the same that somehow that is even remotely the same as not being able to reproduce an “open” LLM.

lolinder 2y ago
All I'm saying is that reproducibility of the released primary artifact—be it source or weights—is not actually a factor in whether we consider something to be open source. Regardless of whether you believe you could rewrite the Linux kernel from scratch, you don't consider the Linux kernel to be open source because you can rewrite it. It's open source because they licensed the preferred form of the work for making modifications under a FOSS license. That's it. Reproducibility of that preferred form from scratch doesn't factor into it.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 2y ago
  Fair. In reading our thread again I realized we are probably talking past each other. Really this discussion should be about the philosophical aspect of what constitutes open source in the context of LLM’s. Which is a tough and more interesting topic. Really the conversation should be reframed to be something along the lines of “is it even ethical for these companies to offer their LLM as anything other than open source”? The answer, if you look into what they do, is “probably not”. Arguing about the technicalities of whether they follow the letter of whatever rule or regulation is probably a waste of time. Because it is completely obvious to anyone who understands how this works that these models are built and sold off the backs of centuries of open source work not licensed or intended to be used for profit.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > Really the conversation should be reframed to be something along the lines of “is it even ethical for these companies to offer their LLM as anything other than open source”? The answer, if you look into what they do, is “probably not”. Agreed, but I'm personally of the opinion that this is true for all intellectual endeavors. Intellectual property is the great sin of our generation, and I hope we eventually learn better. And I think you've hit at the heart of the matter: the push for open source training data has never been about the definition of open source, it's always been a cover for complaints about where the data was sourced from. Which is also why we won't see it any time soon—not until the lawsuits wind their way through the courts, and even then only if the results are favorable towards training.
    - 9dev 2y ago
      It was a joy to follow along this discussion. Thank both of you.

lolinder 2y ago

All I'm saying is that reproducibility of the released primary artifact—be it source or weights—is not actually a factor in whether we consider something to be open source. Regardless of whether you believe you could rewrite the Linux kernel from scratch, you don't consider the Linux kernel to be open source because you can rewrite it. It's open source because they licensed the preferred form of the work for making modifications under a FOSS license. That's it. Reproducibility of that preferred form from scratch doesn't factor into it.

SOLAR_FIELDS 2y ago
Fair. In reading our thread again I realized we are probably talking past each other. Really this discussion should be about the philosophical aspect of what constitutes open source in the context of LLM’s. Which is a tough and more interesting topic. Really the conversation should be reframed to be something along the lines of “is it even ethical for these companies to offer their LLM as anything other than open source”? The answer, if you look into what they do, is “probably not”. Arguing about the technicalities of whether they follow the letter of whatever rule or regulation is probably a waste of time. Because it is completely obvious to anyone who understands how this works that these models are built and sold off the backs of centuries of open source work not licensed or intended to be used for profit.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > Really the conversation should be reframed to be something along the lines of “is it even ethical for these companies to offer their LLM as anything other than open source”? The answer, if you look into what they do, is “probably not”. Agreed, but I'm personally of the opinion that this is true for all intellectual endeavors. Intellectual property is the great sin of our generation, and I hope we eventually learn better. And I think you've hit at the heart of the matter: the push for open source training data has never been about the definition of open source, it's always been a cover for complaints about where the data was sourced from. Which is also why we won't see it any time soon—not until the lawsuits wind their way through the courts, and even then only if the results are favorable towards training.
  - 9dev 2y ago
    It was a joy to follow along this discussion. Thank both of you.