7 ms·
Weights are available on gitcode [1]. [1]: https://gitcode.com/ascend-tribe/pangu-pro-moe-model https://gitcode.com/ascend-tribe/pangu-pro-moe-model
by gkbrk 1y ago
Weights are available on gitcode [1].
[1]: https://gitcode.com/ascend-tribe/pangu-pro-moe-model https://gitcode.com/ascend-tribe/pangu-pro-moe-model
- ssddanbrown 1y agoJust a warning, the license [1] specifically blocks EU use: > 3. Conditions for License Grant. You represent and warrant that You will not, access, download, install, run, deploy, integrate, modify, or otherwise use the Model, directly or indirectly, within the European Union. [1] https://gitcode.com/ascend-tribe/pangu-pro-moe-model/blob/main/LICENSE https://gitcode.com/ascend-tribe/pangu-pro-moe-model/blob/ma...
- pfortuny 1y agoWow this is a huge caveat: a guarantee that they are using data and not complying with GDPR.
- imiric 1y agoShocking. At least they acknowledge it.
- 2Gkashmiri 1y agoIf you download to your PC and run locally, what will happen?
- rusk 1y agoThe same thing that usually happens when you violate TOC … Probably safe enough on your own computer, but could have consequences if it’s a work computer.
- 2Gkashmiri 1y ago>could have consequences if it’s a work computer. consequences for employer who "might" get a license audit done on their machines. does it really happen so often that a random employer in the eu would have to be concerned?
- rusk 1y agoconsequences for you when you unwittingly open up a back door or expose your organisation to a data breach
- viraptor 1y agoYou'll be both breaking their licence and potentially your local European data laws.
- lukan 1y ago" potentially your local European data laws." If run locally, why?
- johnisgood 1y agoI called him out in another thread. It makes absolutely no sense. He is talking against himself, judging by his comments. To answer your question, he modified my comment (see the parentheses): "> The point is, who gives a damn about (doing an illegal thing) in reality, on their (private property where nobody is likely to see that)?" So... at best what he said is purely theoretical. He admitted it himself: "nobody is likely to see that". Though I am not sure I agree with it, but then again, in reality, no one gives a fuck, at least not in Europe.
- sigmoid10 1y agoGDPR is not the issue here, the new AI act is. Since this is an open-weight release it is not bound by the training data disclosure rules, but it probably didn't go through the evaluation that is required above a certain number of FLOPs. That's why many recent big player model releases had a staggered release in the EU.
- seydor 1y agodoes anyone comply with gdpr & Ai act? Even for mistral i m not sure, the best we can say is "we don't know"
- waffleiron 1y agoThere is not a single AI model that fully complies with GDPR. How can you inform everyone, even those not named by actual name but otherwise identifiable, that their data is being processed and give them the ability to object when the data they train on isn’t public. Literally the same for all other open weights, this is just legal ass covering where most others don’t even do that.
- p2detar 1y agoWhat’s the reason behind this? What am I missing?
- worldsavior 1y agoThe company is Chinese, I presume that's why.
- Toritori12 1y agoIs Llama4 also chinese(0)? [0]: https://dionwiggins.substack.com/p/llama-4-is-banned-in-the-eu-open https://dionwiggins.substack.com/p/llama-4-is-banned-in-the-...
- axus 1y agoWorse, it's American!
- Iolaum 1y agoMost likely EU AI act regulations they don't see any value in bothering with.
- dr_dshiv 1y agoHence, the lack of European innovation in AI
- p2detar 1y agoI don’t agree. Tools like DeepL were and still are better than Google Translate long before chat bots became a thing. The French-made Mistral AI is pretty decent as well.
- seanw444 1y agoSaw some benchmarks recently that put Mistral well behind basically every other competitor. Don't have them on hand unfortunately.
- yard2010 1y agoThere's something nefarious about this.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- johnisgood 1y agoAnd who thinks that, for even a second, that an European (in this case) will not download, install, and try to run this just because the LICENSE says you can't? FYI, this is not intended to be offensive to Europeans, I am European myself. That is not the point. The point is, who gives a damn about the LICENSE in reality, on their PERSONAL computer? Serious question.
- _joel 1y agoQuite a few, actually.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- viraptor 1y agoThe licence is not there for enforcement from their side. It's a legal protection for Huawei. Essentially "We told you it's not for the EU. If you get sued don't try to put it on us." Also any company of a serious size will have lawyers interested in licences of everything you're running.
- johnisgood 1y agoI am not talking about companies. I edited my comment. Emphasis on "[their] PERSONAL" computer. I know that companies would probably not. But individuals?
- viraptor 1y ago> The point is, who gives a damn about (doing an illegal thing) in reality, on their (private property where nobody is likely to see that)? I'm not sure which part of that you find confusing. Some people will estimate benefit>risk and won't care.
- knowitnone 1y agoI doubt the Chinese ever care about licensing so I would not care about following their license
- JKCalhoun 1y agoI know people get upset when open source is used when open weight is more correct (happily here open weight is specifically being applied). My question: is open weight even interesting? What does that really offer? Does it allow one to peer into the biases (or lack thereof) of a model? Does it allow one to train a competing model? Would open source be something different and preferable — or are "weights the new source" in this LLM world we are finding ourselves in? I'm trying to educate myself.
- HPsquared 1y agoI really don't get why there's any confusion. These models are LITERALLY compiled binary data. Weights are definitely not source. Source is "the source from which the thing is generated" i.e. the training data (or a script to assemble it) and all scripts, procedures etc required to make the binary blob.