3 ms·

Ironic that your comment contains the only problematic ad-hominem statement in this conversation... You jumped straight to "you're triggered" when all I did wa

Ironic that your comment contains the only problematic ad-hominem statement in this conversation... You jumped straight to "you're triggered" when all I did was reject the idea that we should let people who aren't familiar with where value resides in the model pipeline get to define what parts of the pipeline need to be shared to count as open source. The OSI got that and that's how they ended up not requiring exact datasets be shared in their OSAID: https://www.hpcwire.com/2024/11/06/osi-open-ai-definition-stops-short-of-requiring-open-data-for-llms/ https://www.hpcwire.com/2024/11/06/osi-open-ai-definition-st... - My HF profile has over 50 post-tained models available for anyone to download by the way, and I've had sampler options upstreamed to multiple inference projects.

hhthrowaway1230 2y ago
That ís indeed ironic. I should have used other wording. For that please accept my apologies. Your link is useful and turns both to this https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition and this discussion: https://discuss.opensource.org/t/deepseek-r1-does-it-conform-to-osaid/798/13 https://discuss.opensource.org/t/deepseek-r1-does-it-conform... > Technically, R1 is “open” in that the model is permissively licensed, which means it can be deployed largely without restrictions. However, R1 isn’t “open source” by the widely accepted definition because some of the tools used to build it are shrouded in mystery. Like many high-flying AI companies, DeepSeek is loathe to reveal its secret sauce. and > You are right about the lack of data information for DeepSeek, which is a requirement from the OSAID.
- BoorishBears 2y ago
  That quote is straight up wrong to claim Deepseek has "loathed to reveal their secret sauce". The source of all the excitement is exactly how much they revealed, and I feel like that thread as a whole emphasizes why people who aren't deeply familiar with the pipeline should not get to define these things. "Nick" claims the secret sauce is in something not provided, then posts an article that demonstrates the exact "secret sauce", seemingly not making the connection: https://www.interconnects.ai/p/deepseek-r1-recipe-for-o1 https://www.interconnects.ai/p/deepseek-r1-recipe-for-o1 - There is a lot of detail about the nature of the data used and the exact steps needed to reproduce their findings with your own data. They even provide R1-Zero to demonstrate things that might be dead ends just in case someone can continue them. That should be enough to satisfy any useful definition of open source. Even in the same thread you linked: > Just a curiosity, according to the Model Openness Framework from the Linux Foundation, DeepSeek-R1 classifies as an Open Model: > https://mot.isitopen.ai/model/1143 https://mot.isitopen.ai/model/1143 At the end of the day this is as good as it needs to be for LLMs: By their nature a lot of data being used to train them cannot or should not be openly shared, but the shape and motivations behind the data used are able to push others very far along the way to reproduction and iteration.
  - hhthrowaway1230 2y ago
    I wish you a great remainder of your day!

hhthrowaway1230 2y ago

That ís indeed ironic. I should have used other wording. For that please accept my apologies. Your link is useful and turns both to this https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition and this discussion: https://discuss.opensource.org/t/deepseek-r1-does-it-conform-to-osaid/798/13 https://discuss.opensource.org/t/deepseek-r1-does-it-conform... > Technically, R1 is “open” in that the model is permissively licensed, which means it can be deployed largely without restrictions. However, R1 isn’t “open source” by the widely accepted definition because some of the tools used to build it are shrouded in mystery. Like many high-flying AI companies, DeepSeek is loathe to reveal its secret sauce. and > You are right about the lack of data information for DeepSeek, which is a requirement from the OSAID.

BoorishBears 2y ago
That quote is straight up wrong to claim Deepseek has "loathed to reveal their secret sauce". The source of all the excitement is exactly how much they revealed, and I feel like that thread as a whole emphasizes why people who aren't deeply familiar with the pipeline should not get to define these things. "Nick" claims the secret sauce is in something not provided, then posts an article that demonstrates the exact "secret sauce", seemingly not making the connection: https://www.interconnects.ai/p/deepseek-r1-recipe-for-o1 https://www.interconnects.ai/p/deepseek-r1-recipe-for-o1 - There is a lot of detail about the nature of the data used and the exact steps needed to reproduce their findings with your own data. They even provide R1-Zero to demonstrate things that might be dead ends just in case someone can continue them. That should be enough to satisfy any useful definition of open source. Even in the same thread you linked: > Just a curiosity, according to the Model Openness Framework from the Linux Foundation, DeepSeek-R1 classifies as an Open Model: > https://mot.isitopen.ai/model/1143 https://mot.isitopen.ai/model/1143 At the end of the day this is as good as it needs to be for LLMs: By their nature a lot of data being used to train them cannot or should not be openly shared, but the shape and motivations behind the data used are able to push others very far along the way to reproduction and iteration.
- hhthrowaway1230 2y ago
  I wish you a great remainder of your day!