5 ms·
Not open source. Even if we accept model weights as source code, which is highly dubious, this clearly violates clauses 5 and 6 of the Open Source Definition. I
by mrob 2y ago
Not open source. Even if we accept model weights as source code, which is highly dubious, this clearly violates clauses 5 and 6 of the Open Source Definition. It discriminates between users (clause 5) by refusing to grant any rights to users in the European Union, and it discriminates between uses (clause 6) by requiring agreement to an Acceptable Use Policy.
EDIT: The HN title was changed, which previously made the claim. But as HN user swyx pointed out, Tencent is also claiming this is open source, e.g.: "The currently unveiled Hunyuan-Large (Hunyuan-MoE-A52B) model is the largest open-source Transformer-based MoE model in the industry".
- vanguardanon 2y agoWhat is the reason for restrictions in the EU? Is it due to some EU regulations?
- ronsor 2y agoMost likely yes. I don't think companies can be blamed for not wanting to subject themselves to EU regulations or uncertainty. Edit: Also, if you don't want to follow or deal with EU law, you don't do business in the EU. People here regularly say if you do business in a country, you have to follow its laws. The opposite also applies.
- troupo 2y ago[flagged]
- ronsor 2y agoI will address both points: 1. No one is training on users' bank details, but if you're training on the whole Internet, it's hard to be sure if you've filtered out all PII, or even who is in there. 2. This isn't happening because no one has time for more time-wasting lawsuits.
- troupo 2y ago> No one is training on users' bank details, but if you're training on the whole Internet Tencent has access to more than just bank accounts. In the West there's Meta that this year opted everyone in their platform into training their AI. > This isn't happening because no one has time for more time-wasting lawsuits. No, this isn't happening because a) their training data is, without fail, trained on material they shouldn't have willy-nilly access to and b) because they want to pretend to be open source without being opensource
- bilbo0s 2y ago?? Doesn't that mean if they used data created by, (or even the data of), anyone in the EU, that they would want to not release that model in the EU? This sounds like "if an EU citizen created, or has data referenced, in any piece of the data you trained from then..." Which, I mean, I can kind of see why US and Chinese companies prefer to just not release their models in the EU. How could a company ever make a guarantee satisfying those requirements? It would take a massive filtering effort.
- troupo 2y ago> that they would want to not release that model in the EU They don't release that model in the EU, that's correct > This sounds like "if an EU citizen created, or has data referenced, in any piece of the data you trained from then..." Yes, and that should be the default for any citizen of any country in the world. Instead you have companies like Meta just opting everyone in to their AI training dataset. > I can kind of see why US and Chinese companies prefer to just not release their models in the EU. Companies having unfettered unrestricted access to any and all data they want is not such a good thing as you make it out to be
- warkdarrior 2y ago> > This sounds like "if an EU citizen created, or has data referenced, in any piece of the data you trained from then..." > Yes, and that should be the default for any citizen of any country in the world. This is a completely untenable policy. Each and every piece of data in the world can be traced to one or more citizens of some country. Actively getting permission for every item is not feasible for any company, no matter the scale of the company.
- andyferris 2y agoI think that’s kinda the point that is being made. Technolgy-wise, it is clearly feasible to aggregate the data to train an LLM and to release a product on that. It seems that some would argue that was never legally a feasible thing to do, based on the training data being impossible to use legally. So, it is the existence of many of these LLMs that is (legally) untenable. Whether valid or not the point may be mute because, like Uber, if the laws actually do forbid this use, they will change as necessary to accommodate the new technology. Too many “average voters” like using things such as ChatGPT and it’s not a hill politicians will be willing to die on.
- GaggiX 2y agoThey probably trained on data protected by privacy laws, similar to Meta.
- blueblimp 2y agoIn Meta's case, the problem is that they had been given the go-ahead by the EU to train on certain data, and then after starting training, the EU changed its mind and told them to stop.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago[flagged]
- kaliqt 2y agoI agree, however, Meta is also guilty of this crime as well.
- ronsor 2y agoI will again ask the obligatory question: are model weights even copyrightable? And if not, does the "license" still matter?
- parl_match 2y agoI doubt there will be a satisfactory answer for a long time.
- killjoywashere 2y agoHow's that NYTimes vs OpenAI lawsuit going? Last I can find is things are hung up in discovery: OpenAI has requested potentially a century of NYTimes reporters' notes. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/openais-aggressive-court-tactics-test-first-amendment-limits https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/openais-aggressive-cour...
- bdowling 2y agoHalf a century worth of reporters’ notes might be some valuable training data.
- neilv 2y ago> The AI company asked Judge Sidney H. Stein of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to step in and compel the Times to produce reporters’ notes, interview memos, and other materials for each of the roughly 10 million contested articles the publication alleges were illegally plugged into the company’s AI models. OpenAI said it needs the material to suss out the copyrightability of the articles. The Times quickly fired back, calling the request absurd. Can any lawyer on here defend OpenAI's request? Or is the article not characterizing it well in the quote?
- warkdarrior 2y ago(IANAL) Model weights could be treated the same way phone books, encyclopedias, and other collections of data are treated. The copyright is over the collection itself, even if the individual items are not copyrightable.
- karaterobot 2y agoHmm, in fairness I don't see where Tencent is claiming this is open source (at least in this repo; I haven't checked elsewhere). The title of the HN post does make the claim, and that may be controversial or simply incorrect.
- swyx 2y agoreadme: https://github.com/Tencent/Tencent-Hunyuan-Large https://github.com/Tencent/Tencent-Hunyuan-Large > "By open-sourcing the Hunyuan-Large model"
- karaterobot 2y agoYeah, I was incorrect above. I just didn't search for the hyphen.
- foooorsyth 2y ago[flagged]
- mrob 2y agoThe term "open source" had no significant use to refer to software before the Open Source Initiative started promoting it. Previously, it was only intelligence industry jargon, meaning "publicly available information", which includes software that fails your "can read the source code" test. "Source" was used in the journalistic sense, not as in "source code". The correct term for software that passes your test but does not meet the Open Source Definition is "source available".
- HDThoreaun 2y agoopen source means the source code is openly available. That is it. Phrases that have intuitive meaning need to stop being co-opted.
- mrob 2y agoIf that meaning is "intuitive", why was it not used before the Open Source Initiative introduced their definition? The competing uses are the ones co-opting an existing phrase.
- foooorsyth 2y agoIt’s perfectly intuitive to anyone with a brain. Never heard of OSI but they seem just about as pedantic, neurotic, and annoying with language as FSF. Open source = I can view the source code. That’s what it means, that what it has always meant, and that what it will always mean. Simple as.
- kube-system 2y agoThe OSI made a huge mistake in choosing to use an non-trademarkable borrowed term as their own trade industry term. The original (and quite long standing) use to refer to publicly available texts is still widely used, and English isn't a prescriptive language outside of legal frameworks like trademark. This is why you really should pick a trademarkable name when you try to define trade marks.
- DataDaemon 2y agoWho cares about EU? They are destroying themselves.
- the5avage 2y agoWhere would you go when you would live there (as a programmer interested in ai)? Just asking for a friend.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Mistletoe 2y agoIronically their policies are why I want to move there with my American dollars. I want to live somewhere that cares about my rights, not the rights of corporations.
- CamperBob2 2y agoThat's fine, but don't complain when you lose access to products and services that are widely available elsewhere. In particular, restrictions on ML models will leave you without access to extremely powerful resources that are available to people in other countries, and to people in your own country who don't mind operating outside the law. Copyright maximalism is not, in fact, a good thing, and neither is overbearing nanny-statism. Both will ultimately disempower you.
- bluefirebrand 2y agoYou have to realize that as an individual, you have no power anyways It doesn't matter if an individual personally has access to ML models, because government and/or huge corporations will ensure that individuals cannot use them for anything that would threaten government or corporate interests This unfettered explosion of ML growth is disempowering all of us. Those with power are not using these tools to augment us, they are hoping to replace us.
- dplavery92 2y agoThe title of Tencent's paper [0] as well as their homepage for the model [1] each use the term "Open-Source" in the title, so I think they are making the claim. [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2411.02265 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2411.02265 [1] https://llm.hunyuan.tencent.com/ https://llm.hunyuan.tencent.com/