4 ms·

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 ge

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.

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.