3 ms·
Wow, please edit the title to include Open-source !
by abdellah123 1y ago
Wow, please edit the title to include Open-source !
- Blahah 1y agoWhy? Open source isn't in the original title
- SV_BubbleTime 1y agoAlso “open source” I feel covers for “open weights” which is not the same thing.
- adastra22 1y agoWhat does “open source” even mean when there is no source code?
- SV_BubbleTime 1y agoThere is a source, it would be the training data. There is also kind of the training code. Almost absolutely no one releases their training data.
- numpad0 1y agoThese open models are just commercial binary distributions made available at zero cost with intention to cripple opportunities for Western LLM providers to capitalize on investments. These are more like really gorgeous corporate swags than FOSS.
- badsectoracula 1y ago> intention to cripple opportunities for Western LLM providers to capitalize on investments. Western LLM providers release open weight models too (e.g. Mistral).
- echelon 1y ago> cripple opportunities for Western LLM Good! If they're not open, they're creating more lock-in. And on top of that, they're using information they don't own to do so and then renting it back to us.
- numpad0 1y agoI 100% support it as a consumer :P but IMO we do have to be aware that it's just a happy coincidence.
- ttrotcre6454 1y agoDo you realize how silly you sound ? "Linux was a Finish conspiracy to cripple hard-working US operating systems makers. It's not really open because I don't understand it." Leave nationalism to those who want to use you as mere pawns in their imaginary Chess game.
- numpad0 1y agoI don't care as long as it doesn't sound sillier than to call them open source. They're literally binaries. Often lossy compressed, even.
- adastra22 1y agoOpen weights is the equivalent of open source here. DeepSeek is open weight. If you have some reason to believe a different definition should be used, please provide it. Because there is no source code here.