5 ms·

It's very nice that it has the Apache 2.0 license, i.e. well understood license, instead of some "open weight" license with a lot of conditions.

resource_waste 1y ago
[flagged]
- solomatov 1y ago
  IMO, it's not about ethics, it's about legal risks. What if you want to fine tune a model on output related to your usage? Then my understanding is that all these derivatives need to be under the same license. What if G will change their prohibited use policy (the first line there is that they could update it from time to time)? There's really crazy stuff in terms of use of some services, what if G adds something in the same tune there which basically makes your application impossible. P.S. I am not a lawyer.
- orbisvicis 1y ago
  I'm not sure what you're trying to imply... only rogue software developers use devstral?
- dismalaf 1y ago
  It's not about ethical or not, it's about risk to your startup. Ethics are super subjective (and often change based on politics). Apache means you own your own model, period.
  - sofixa 1y ago
    > Ethics are super subjective (and often change based on politics). That's obviously not true. Ethics often have some nuance and some subjectiveness, but it's not something entirely subjective up to "politics". Saying this makes it sound like you work at a startup for an AI powered armed drone, and your view of it is 'eh, ethics is subjective, this is fine' when asked how do you feel about responsibility and AI killing people.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > Ethics often have some nuance and some subjectiveness, but it's not something entirely subjective up to "politics". Ethics are entirely subjective, as is inherently true of anything that supports "should" statements, because to justify any should statement, you need another "should" statement, you can never rest should entirely on "is" (you can, potentially, reset any entire system of "should" one root "should" axiom, though in practice most systems have more than one root axiom.) And the process of coming to social consensus on a system of ethics is precisely politics. You can dislike that this is true, but it is true. > Saying this makes it sound like you work at a startup for an AI powered armed drone, and your view of it is 'eh, ethics is subjective, this is fine' when asked how do you feel about responsibility and AI killing people. Understanding that ethics is subjective does not mean that one does not have a strong ethical framework that they adhere to. It just means that one understands the fundamental nature of ethics and the kind of propositions that ethical propositions inherently are. Understanding that ethics are subjective does not, in other words, imply the belief that all beliefs about ethics (or, a fortiori, matters that are inherently subjective more generally) are of equal moral/ethical merit.
      - sofixa 1y ago
        > Ethics are entirely subjective That's obviously not true. Is it ethical to have slaves or kill children? No, objectively, it is not.
        Eupolemos 1y ago
        It was in Rome. You are objectively using objectively wrong :-P (sorry, couldn't resist) Disclaimer: I agree that having slaves or killing children is very wrong.
        sneak 1y ago
        You are getting morals and ethics confused. Ethics are an objective analysis framework. Morals are subjective. There are plenty of ethical frameworks where those examples you give objectively evaluate to “yes”.
    - 1y ago
- simonw 1y ago
  What's different between the ethics of Mistral and Gemma?
  - Philpax 1y ago
    I think their point was more that Gemma open models have restrictive licences, while some Mistral open models do not.
- Havoc 1y ago
  They're all quite easy to strip of protections and I don't think anyone doing unethical stuff is big on following licenses anyway
- portaouflop 1y ago
  TIL Open Source is only used for unethical purposes

resource_waste 1y ago

[flagged]

solomatov 1y ago
IMO, it's not about ethics, it's about legal risks. What if you want to fine tune a model on output related to your usage? Then my understanding is that all these derivatives need to be under the same license. What if G will change their prohibited use policy (the first line there is that they could update it from time to time)? There's really crazy stuff in terms of use of some services, what if G adds something in the same tune there which basically makes your application impossible. P.S. I am not a lawyer.
orbisvicis 1y ago
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply... only rogue software developers use devstral?
dismalaf 1y ago
It's not about ethical or not, it's about risk to your startup. Ethics are super subjective (and often change based on politics). Apache means you own your own model, period.
- sofixa 1y ago
  > Ethics are super subjective (and often change based on politics). That's obviously not true. Ethics often have some nuance and some subjectiveness, but it's not something entirely subjective up to "politics". Saying this makes it sound like you work at a startup for an AI powered armed drone, and your view of it is 'eh, ethics is subjective, this is fine' when asked how do you feel about responsibility and AI killing people.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > Ethics often have some nuance and some subjectiveness, but it's not something entirely subjective up to "politics". Ethics are entirely subjective, as is inherently true of anything that supports "should" statements, because to justify any should statement, you need another "should" statement, you can never rest should entirely on "is" (you can, potentially, reset any entire system of "should" one root "should" axiom, though in practice most systems have more than one root axiom.) And the process of coming to social consensus on a system of ethics is precisely politics. You can dislike that this is true, but it is true. > Saying this makes it sound like you work at a startup for an AI powered armed drone, and your view of it is 'eh, ethics is subjective, this is fine' when asked how do you feel about responsibility and AI killing people. Understanding that ethics is subjective does not mean that one does not have a strong ethical framework that they adhere to. It just means that one understands the fundamental nature of ethics and the kind of propositions that ethical propositions inherently are. Understanding that ethics are subjective does not, in other words, imply the belief that all beliefs about ethics (or, a fortiori, matters that are inherently subjective more generally) are of equal moral/ethical merit.
    - sofixa 1y ago
      > Ethics are entirely subjective That's obviously not true. Is it ethical to have slaves or kill children? No, objectively, it is not.
      - Eupolemos 1y ago
        It was in Rome. You are objectively using objectively wrong :-P (sorry, couldn't resist) Disclaimer: I agree that having slaves or killing children is very wrong.
      - sneak 1y ago
        You are getting morals and ethics confused. Ethics are an objective analysis framework. Morals are subjective. There are plenty of ethical frameworks where those examples you give objectively evaluate to “yes”.
  - 1y ago
simonw 1y ago
What's different between the ethics of Mistral and Gemma?
- Philpax 1y ago
  I think their point was more that Gemma open models have restrictive licences, while some Mistral open models do not.
Havoc 1y ago
They're all quite easy to strip of protections and I don't think anyone doing unethical stuff is big on following licenses anyway
portaouflop 1y ago
TIL Open Source is only used for unethical purposes