>Meta calling their approach "open" and what the OSI deems "open" are both flawed and/or misleading.[...] It's gotten to the point that whenever I see a Western

>Meta calling their approach "open" and what the OSI deems "open" are both flawed and/or misleading.[...] It's gotten to the point that whenever I see a Western publication, I groan. llama weights are open, and Qwen 1.0 was based on llama,[0] so clearly those papers are useful to some people, even if some people want to be angry at Meta for not being open enough for them. In fact I would say Qwen is less useful than llama as their technical reports are not nearly as detailed as Meta's. Also, Why groan just from seeing the origin of a project? Just read it to see if it is open or not. And there are also lots of popular Chinese models that are completely closed with no code or paper eg. Hailuo, Kling, etc. [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.16609 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.16609 p. 6