3 ms·

Sure, I don't disagree. I fully understand the open-weights folks looking for a word to communicate their approach and its benefits, and I support them in doing

by sho_hn 2y ago

Sure, I don't disagree. I fully understand the open-weights folks looking for a word to communicate their approach and its benefits, and I support them in doing so. It's just a shame they picked this one in - and that's giving folks a lot of benefit of the doubt - a snap judgement. > Maybe we can have FOSS LLMs vs open-source ones, like we do with software licenses. Why not just call them freeware LLMs, which would be much more accurate? There's nothing "hardcore" or "zealot" about not calling these open source LLMs because there's just ... absolutely nothing there that you call open source in any way. We don't call any other freeware "open source" for being a free download with a limited use license. This is just "we chose a word to communicate we are different from the other guys". In games, they chose to call it "free to play (f2p)" when addressing a similar issue (but it's also not a great fit since f2p games usually have a server dependency).

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Why not just call them freeware LLMs, which would be much more accurate? Most of the public is unfamiliar with the term. And with some of the FOSS community arguing for open training data, it was easy to overrule them and take the term.
- sho_hn 2y ago
  Most of the public is also unfamiliar with the term open source, and I'm not sure they did themselves any favors by picking one that invites far more questions and needs for explanation. In that sense, it may have accomplished little but its harmful effects. I get your overall take is "this is just how things go in language", but you can escalate that non-caring perspective all the way to entropy and the heat death of the universe, and I guess I prefer being an element that creates some structure in things, however fleeting.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Most of the public is also unfamiliar with the term open source I’d argue otherwise. (Familiar with, not know.) Particularly in policy circles. > picking one that invites far more questions and needs for explanation There wasn't ever a debate. And now, not even the OSI demands training data. (It couldn’t. It, too, would be ignored.)

by sho_hn 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Why not just call them freeware LLMs, which would be much more accurate? Most of the public is unfamiliar with the term. And with some of the FOSS community arguing for open training data, it was easy to overrule them and take the term.

sho_hn 2y ago
Most of the public is also unfamiliar with the term open source, and I'm not sure they did themselves any favors by picking one that invites far more questions and needs for explanation. In that sense, it may have accomplished little but its harmful effects. I get your overall take is "this is just how things go in language", but you can escalate that non-caring perspective all the way to entropy and the heat death of the universe, and I guess I prefer being an element that creates some structure in things, however fleeting.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Most of the public is also unfamiliar with the term open source I’d argue otherwise. (Familiar with, not know.) Particularly in policy circles. > picking one that invites far more questions and needs for explanation There wasn't ever a debate. And now, not even the OSI demands training data. (It couldn’t. It, too, would be ignored.)