5 ms·

Meh. Custom architecture with a non-commercial, research-only license. Qwen-2.5 3B also has a research-only license, but is way ahead of this model on almost al

Meh. Custom architecture with a non-commercial, research-only license. Qwen-2.5 3B also has a research-only license, but is way ahead of this model on almost all of the benchmarks. https://huggingface.co/amd/Instella-3B-Instruct https://huggingface.co/amd/Instella-3B-Instruct

bayindirh 2y ago
Why not being able to sell what others did is so important? In my eyes, having a completely novel and reproducible model from end to end, including its dataset is great news.
- _aavaa_ 2y ago
  Because they are heavily abusing the definition of “open source”. Though that ship has also sailed when it was decided that a model is “open source” when you get the final weights but not the exact training scripts and data
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    > Though that ship has also sailed when it was decided that a model is “open source” ... So we can't egg AMD just because they did something better in some cases and worse in others? They released a model from end to end and shown that they can compete now. Who cares about the business applications. That can come later. The other actors abuse the definition of Open Source, too. Not only in AI, even. So, we shall denounce others with the same force, but we don't, because of the broken window theorem. AMD is already an underdog, so whatever they do has no merit, and worthy of booing. Do masses boo NVIDIA for their abuse of the ecosystem? Did Intel got the same treatment when they were choking everyone else unethically? Of course not.. Because they are/were the incumbents. They had no broken windows.
    - _aavaa_ 2y ago
      I’m not responsible for what others denounce other companies for doing. It has nothing to do with me. I don’t care what the masses are doing. When other companies abuse the phrase “open source” they should be called out on it. And I’m complaining about AMD’s use of it here. Just because they’re an underdog doesn’t mean they get a pass.
      - bayindirh 2y ago
        I didn't say AMD gets a pass here. What I said is "if the ship has sailed, we have no right to single out AMD at this point, and if we're going to change this, we need to target everyone at once".
  - BoredPositron 2y ago
    But they trained on open datasets…
    - _aavaa_ 2y ago
      They did, unlike most others. But at the end of the day their released model still has restrictions on what use cases you can use the model in. If this was a piece of source code rather than an AI model it would not count as open source. And just because it’s AI model I do not think it should have a different standard.
- woadwarrior01 2y ago
  I'm trying to be flippant, but I'm genuinely curious. Have you read their license[1]? The terms are really broad and onerous even if one wants to use it for purely non-commercial, academic purposes. [1]: https://huggingface.co/amd/Instella-3B-Instruct/raw/main/LICENSE https://huggingface.co/amd/Instella-3B-Instruct/raw/main/LIC...
  - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 2y ago
    It's just the RAIL Research-use licenses. Both the Research M and Research S license. https://www.licenses.ai/blog/2023/3/3/ai-pubs-rail-licenses https://www.licenses.ai/blog/2023/3/3/ai-pubs-rail-licenses https://www.licenses.ai/rail-license-generator https://www.licenses.ai/rail-license-generator The intent of the license is to show the techniques used in the project and to provide the results in a form that they can be used to further development of other projects but not be used themselves. The TLDR of the license is "here's the model and the sources. use it to help make your own models but don't use our model directly"
    - woadwarrior01 2y ago
      > It's just the RAIL Research-use licenses. No it isn't. It's a ResearchRAIL-MS derived license with lots of additional restrictions piled on. > The TLDR of the license is "here's the model and the sources. use it to help make your own models but don't use our model directly" ICYMI, it's a ResearchRAIL-MS derived license and not a ResearchRAIL-M derived license. All the onerous restrictions apply to the model as well as the source code.
      - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 2y ago
        ResearchRAIL comes in a handful of flavors. ResearchRAIL-M (model) and ResearchRAIL-S (source) are two of the flavors. If you combine them you get ResearchRAIL-MS (model+source). You can make an MS license in their license generator by selecting ResearchRAIL and checking both the model and source buttons.
      - bayindirh 2y ago
- pama 2y ago
  Not GP, but in my opinion the reason why the license restriction is so important is that otherwise very few people will be able to try it. Huggingface or other commercial providers cannot put it up online (even if they didnt charge for the use, these entities might benefit from publicity so they might need to negotiate with AMD). I am not sure if this model will make it to the lmsys leaderboard either unless AMD helps provide an API endpoint and allows them to use it. If you install it in an HPC center for non-industry researchers you have to trust the new AMD codes (few people will do a serious infosec analysis on them), and you have to make sure you exclude people that might have commercial interests (say a student with a startup). It is not the license only that is slowing things down, but if the license was more general the code would develop more smoothly, and things like vllm might start to support it real soon.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    The license doesn't restrict hosting it (and explicitly allows 3rd party access), but might require a license wall to click through. I'm not sure where did you infer that from. I'm not an AMD employee, so I can't tell about their API access. People here see student startups, I see tons of non-commercial research networks from where I sit. So the license is not absurd from where I look.
    - pama 2y ago
      Maybe strict compliance is not as big a threat for academic institutions. A wall ot click-through text does not technically limit liabilities against good lawyers on the other side, so you might need better measures to ensure compliance in a setting where some users might have commercial interests. To be clear, I am happy AMD is trying to get in the game. I just dont feel this model will gain as much use as it would have had with a permissive license and I hope that AMD will switch to better licenses (like Qwen or Llama models have also done in the past).
rbanffy 2y ago
I understand their point in doing this - they want to use it as a sales enabler: they want you to buy GPUs to train their model for yourself, maybe tweak it with some non-free content, and then be able to use it commercially.
megadata 2y ago
The entitlement is big and burly with this one.

bayindirh 2y ago

Why not being able to sell what others did is so important? In my eyes, having a completely novel and reproducible model from end to end, including its dataset is great news.

_aavaa_ 2y ago
Because they are heavily abusing the definition of “open source”. Though that ship has also sailed when it was decided that a model is “open source” when you get the final weights but not the exact training scripts and data
- bayindirh 2y ago
  > Though that ship has also sailed when it was decided that a model is “open source” ... So we can't egg AMD just because they did something better in some cases and worse in others? They released a model from end to end and shown that they can compete now. Who cares about the business applications. That can come later. The other actors abuse the definition of Open Source, too. Not only in AI, even. So, we shall denounce others with the same force, but we don't, because of the broken window theorem. AMD is already an underdog, so whatever they do has no merit, and worthy of booing. Do masses boo NVIDIA for their abuse of the ecosystem? Did Intel got the same treatment when they were choking everyone else unethically? Of course not.. Because they are/were the incumbents. They had no broken windows.
  - _aavaa_ 2y ago
    I’m not responsible for what others denounce other companies for doing. It has nothing to do with me. I don’t care what the masses are doing. When other companies abuse the phrase “open source” they should be called out on it. And I’m complaining about AMD’s use of it here. Just because they’re an underdog doesn’t mean they get a pass.
    - bayindirh 2y ago
      I didn't say AMD gets a pass here. What I said is "if the ship has sailed, we have no right to single out AMD at this point, and if we're going to change this, we need to target everyone at once".
- BoredPositron 2y ago
  But they trained on open datasets…
  - _aavaa_ 2y ago
    They did, unlike most others. But at the end of the day their released model still has restrictions on what use cases you can use the model in. If this was a piece of source code rather than an AI model it would not count as open source. And just because it’s AI model I do not think it should have a different standard.
woadwarrior01 2y ago
I'm trying to be flippant, but I'm genuinely curious. Have you read their license[1]? The terms are really broad and onerous even if one wants to use it for purely non-commercial, academic purposes. [1]: https://huggingface.co/amd/Instella-3B-Instruct/raw/main/LICENSE https://huggingface.co/amd/Instella-3B-Instruct/raw/main/LIC...
- OneDeuxTriSeiGo 2y ago
  It's just the RAIL Research-use licenses. Both the Research M and Research S license. https://www.licenses.ai/blog/2023/3/3/ai-pubs-rail-licenses https://www.licenses.ai/blog/2023/3/3/ai-pubs-rail-licenses https://www.licenses.ai/rail-license-generator https://www.licenses.ai/rail-license-generator The intent of the license is to show the techniques used in the project and to provide the results in a form that they can be used to further development of other projects but not be used themselves. The TLDR of the license is "here's the model and the sources. use it to help make your own models but don't use our model directly"
  - woadwarrior01 2y ago
    > It's just the RAIL Research-use licenses. No it isn't. It's a ResearchRAIL-MS derived license with lots of additional restrictions piled on. > The TLDR of the license is "here's the model and the sources. use it to help make your own models but don't use our model directly" ICYMI, it's a ResearchRAIL-MS derived license and not a ResearchRAIL-M derived license. All the onerous restrictions apply to the model as well as the source code.
    - OneDeuxTriSeiGo 2y ago
      ResearchRAIL comes in a handful of flavors. ResearchRAIL-M (model) and ResearchRAIL-S (source) are two of the flavors. If you combine them you get ResearchRAIL-MS (model+source). You can make an MS license in their license generator by selecting ResearchRAIL and checking both the model and source buttons.
    - bayindirh 2y ago
pama 2y ago
Not GP, but in my opinion the reason why the license restriction is so important is that otherwise very few people will be able to try it. Huggingface or other commercial providers cannot put it up online (even if they didnt charge for the use, these entities might benefit from publicity so they might need to negotiate with AMD). I am not sure if this model will make it to the lmsys leaderboard either unless AMD helps provide an API endpoint and allows them to use it. If you install it in an HPC center for non-industry researchers you have to trust the new AMD codes (few people will do a serious infosec analysis on them), and you have to make sure you exclude people that might have commercial interests (say a student with a startup). It is not the license only that is slowing things down, but if the license was more general the code would develop more smoothly, and things like vllm might start to support it real soon.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  The license doesn't restrict hosting it (and explicitly allows 3rd party access), but might require a license wall to click through. I'm not sure where did you infer that from. I'm not an AMD employee, so I can't tell about their API access. People here see student startups, I see tons of non-commercial research networks from where I sit. So the license is not absurd from where I look.
  - pama 2y ago
    Maybe strict compliance is not as big a threat for academic institutions. A wall ot click-through text does not technically limit liabilities against good lawyers on the other side, so you might need better measures to ensure compliance in a setting where some users might have commercial interests. To be clear, I am happy AMD is trying to get in the game. I just dont feel this model will gain as much use as it would have had with a permissive license and I hope that AMD will switch to better licenses (like Qwen or Llama models have also done in the past).

rbanffy 2y ago

I understand their point in doing this - they want to use it as a sales enabler: they want you to buy GPUs to train their model for yourself, maybe tweak it with some non-free content, and then be able to use it commercially.

megadata 2y ago

The entitlement is big and burly with this one.