3 ms·

doesn't it get tiring after a while? using the same (perceived) gotcha, over and over again, for three years now? no one is ever going to release their trainin

doesn't it get tiring after a while? using the same (perceived) gotcha, over and over again, for three years now? no one is ever going to release their training data because it contains every copyrighted work in existence. everyone, even the hecking-wholesome safety-first Anthropic, is using copyrighted data without permission to train their models. there you go.

fragmede 6mo ago
it's not a gotcha but people using words in ways others don't like.
- a96 6mo ago
  It's not about likes, it's a flat out lie.
- necovek 6mo ago
  I can dislike word "bread" being used to represent edible produce made from (wheat) flour, yeast and water and insist that be called dough-nut (it looks just like a big nut made from dough), but I would be frequently misunderstood. This is why we standardize meaning of words, out them in a dictionary — so we can more effectively understand each other. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source
necovek 6mo ago
There is an easy fix already in widespread use: "open weights". It is very much a valuable thing already, no need to taint it with wrong promise. Though I disagree about being used if it was indeed open source: I might not do it inside my home lab today, but at least Qwen and DeepSeek would use and build on what eg. Facebook was doing with Llama, and they might be pushing the open weights model frontier forward faster.
- dannyw 6mo ago
  Yeah, open weights is really good, especially when base models (not just the instruction tuned) weights are released like here.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > There is an easy fix already in widespread use: "open weights" They're both correct given how the terms are actually used. We just have to deduce what's meant from context. There was a moment, around when Llama was first being released, when the semantics hadn't yet set. The nutter wing of the FOSS community, to my memory, put forward a hard-line and unworkable definition of open source and seemed to reject open weights, too. So the definition got punted to the closest thing at hand, which was open weights with limited (unfortunately, not no) use restrictions. At this point, it's a personal preference that's at most polite to respect if you know your audience has one.
  - necovek 6mo ago
    The point is that "open source" by now has an established and widespread definition, and a "source" hints that it is something a thing is built from that is open. Is this really a debate we still need to be having today? Sounds like grumpiness with Open Source Initiative defining this ~25 years ago when this term was rarely used as such. If we do not accept a well defined term and want to keep it a personal preference, we can say that about any word in a natural language.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > "open source" by now has an established and widespread definition For code, yes. For LLMs, the most commonly-used definition is synonymous with open weight (plus, I think, lack of major use restrictions). > If we do not accept a well defined term and want to keep it a personal preference, we can say that about any word in a natural language Plenty of people do. It’s generally polite to entertain their preferences, but only to a limit, and certainly not as a forcing function. The practical reality is describing DeepSeek’s models as open source is today the mainstream mode.
      - necovek 6mo ago
        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source Perhaps you are right and this LLM-specific usage enters a dictionary at some point. As I believe it is very misleading, I am doing my part to discourage it — it is not, imho, impolite to point out established meaning of words when people misuse them. We all create a language together, and all sides have their say.
Tepix 6mo ago
Nvidia did with Nemo.
- niea_11 6mo ago
  And they got sued : https://www.reuters.com/technology/nvidia-is-sued-by-authors-over-ai-use-copyrighted-works-2024-03-10/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/nvidia-is-sued-by-authors...
  - mike_hearn 6mo ago
    Every lab has been sued whether they released training data or not.
  - Tepix 6mo ago
    They have the deep pockets to either win the lawsuit (fair use) or pay the authors.

fragmede 6mo ago

it's not a gotcha but people using words in ways others don't like.

a96 6mo ago
It's not about likes, it's a flat out lie.
necovek 6mo ago
I can dislike word "bread" being used to represent edible produce made from (wheat) flour, yeast and water and insist that be called dough-nut (it looks just like a big nut made from dough), but I would be frequently misunderstood. This is why we standardize meaning of words, out them in a dictionary — so we can more effectively understand each other. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source

necovek 6mo ago

There is an easy fix already in widespread use: "open weights". It is very much a valuable thing already, no need to taint it with wrong promise. Though I disagree about being used if it was indeed open source: I might not do it inside my home lab today, but at least Qwen and DeepSeek would use and build on what eg. Facebook was doing with Llama, and they might be pushing the open weights model frontier forward faster.

dannyw 6mo ago
Yeah, open weights is really good, especially when base models (not just the instruction tuned) weights are released like here.
JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> There is an easy fix already in widespread use: "open weights" They're both correct given how the terms are actually used. We just have to deduce what's meant from context. There was a moment, around when Llama was first being released, when the semantics hadn't yet set. The nutter wing of the FOSS community, to my memory, put forward a hard-line and unworkable definition of open source and seemed to reject open weights, too. So the definition got punted to the closest thing at hand, which was open weights with limited (unfortunately, not no) use restrictions. At this point, it's a personal preference that's at most polite to respect if you know your audience has one.
- necovek 6mo ago
  The point is that "open source" by now has an established and widespread definition, and a "source" hints that it is something a thing is built from that is open. Is this really a debate we still need to be having today? Sounds like grumpiness with Open Source Initiative defining this ~25 years ago when this term was rarely used as such. If we do not accept a well defined term and want to keep it a personal preference, we can say that about any word in a natural language.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > "open source" by now has an established and widespread definition For code, yes. For LLMs, the most commonly-used definition is synonymous with open weight (plus, I think, lack of major use restrictions). > If we do not accept a well defined term and want to keep it a personal preference, we can say that about any word in a natural language Plenty of people do. It’s generally polite to entertain their preferences, but only to a limit, and certainly not as a forcing function. The practical reality is describing DeepSeek’s models as open source is today the mainstream mode.
    - necovek 6mo ago
      https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source Perhaps you are right and this LLM-specific usage enters a dictionary at some point. As I believe it is very misleading, I am doing my part to discourage it — it is not, imho, impolite to point out established meaning of words when people misuse them. We all create a language together, and all sides have their say.

Tepix 6mo ago

Nvidia did with Nemo.

niea_11 6mo ago
And they got sued : https://www.reuters.com/technology/nvidia-is-sued-by-authors-over-ai-use-copyrighted-works-2024-03-10/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/nvidia-is-sued-by-authors...
- mike_hearn 6mo ago
  Every lab has been sued whether they released training data or not.
- Tepix 6mo ago
  They have the deep pockets to either win the lawsuit (fair use) or pay the authors.