3 ms·

The article talks about the fact that those model are "available to anyone", even Llama is Open Source from that point of view: https://github.com/meta-llama/ll

The article talks about the fact that those model are "available to anyone", even Llama is Open Source from that point of view: https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models Where Llama is not Open Source is in total respect of certain ethical principles: https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-license-is-still-not-open-source https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-license-is-still-not... So, it’snot 100% Open Source inside the context of the article it’s acceptable. Moreover, even DeepSeek is not OpenSource, it’s "OpenWeight"

jraph 2y ago
Words have meaning and sometimes it's important to remain clear. I think it is not acceptable to use "open source" for things that are not actually "open source", especially in an article about the topic. There are probably better words to describe what needs to be described instead. See my other comment [1] where I try to defend why I think like this. (Now, as I'm saying in the other comment, in this case for this article, it's just an example that doesn't work, it's not something fundamentally wrong about it.) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43613453#43614394 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43613453#43614394