14 ms·

I wish they wouldn't call them "open source models". They aren't open source. They didn't publish the training data. They didn't publish the tools they used

by kelnos 2mo ago

I wish they wouldn't call them "open source models". They aren't open source. They didn't publish the training data. They didn't publish the tools they used to train the model. They published the weights. It's an "open weight model", a term that it seems nearly everyone has agreed is appropriate. Why is this company not using it?

charcircuit 2mo ago
The weights are the preferred form for modifying or integrating with other models. There is no obligation in open source to transitively open source all of the documentation / tools used to create the open source project. >a term that it seems nearly everyone has agreed is appropriate Models being considered open source even if the original training code / data is not released also is something almost everyone has agreed to be appropriate.
- teruakohatu 2mo ago
  > There is no obligation in open source to transitively open source all of the documentation / tools used to create the open source project. Open source means open source code. Open weight means a binary file dump, not unlike an exe file. There is nothing open source about it. Its like having a closed source text editor that censors certain words, and an open source text editor that censors certain words. The latter can easily be recompiled, the former requires reverse engineering. Both may give you a license to use them freely.
  - Alpha3031 2mo ago
    Per the OSD definition of source code, "the source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program." which means an argument could be made (as charcircuit is making) that the weights, being the preferred form to modify, are the source. I do prefer open weights as being more precise (like, is it even really software that has source code in the first place?) but I feel like at this point the ship has sailed somewhat (though if this is something you're willing to spend your time arguing then... moral support I guess?)
    - ciupicri 2mo ago
      You can also edit/patch binary executables, but no one says about that software that is open source.
      - Muromec 2mo ago
        You can, but its not the first preference
      - applfanboysbgon 2mo ago
        Incidentally, I do. I fucking hate the open source maximalists like Stallman who suggest that not having source code is equivalent to not having control over what runs on your computer. But you always[1] have control over what runs on your computer. Reverse engineer it if you care so much! Every form of DRM is inevitably defeated, because you do have control over program execution, regardless of access to the source code. Stallman's argument seems more lazy and entitled than principled. [1] ...setting aside hardware attestation bullshit, which does need to die in a fire.
  - charcircuit 2mo ago
    I think you are failing to see how the weights are the preferred form of working with a model. It's like if I shared a png with others to use as a meme template. Even if I don't share the source code to photoshop other people can use that "binary file dump" to make derivative images of their own with it.
    - andy99 2mo ago
      I feel like the arguments being made about sharing the training data are from people who don’t have any experience training ML models and have never worked with weights. The biggest reason I have seen that people want the data is to complain about some aspect of it (copyright, bias, etc) I would be very interested to hear someone explain what freedom it is they need the training data to enjoy.
- dietr1ch 2mo ago
  > The weights are the preferred form for modifying or integrating with other models It's the 2nd time I hear this argument and I'm already fed up with it Is it the preferred way only because training is expensive? It's like saying binaries are the preferred way of modifying program because you can't afford to have a fast enough machine to compile it yourself. Most people don't have resources to compile their own browser, but what makes some browsers open is access to the source. Maybe it's the preferred way because the people sharing models are themselves working with weights and no data?
  - NitpickLawyer 2mo ago
    > Is it the preferred way only because training is expensive? No, it's the preferred way because that's literally how you train it. Contrary to popular misconceptions, you don't "compile" data into weights. You initialize a model (based on architecture, config, etc) and then you modify it via training. But crucially they (i.e. model creators) modify it the same way (technically speaking) as you would. That's what the license grants you. Nothing less, nothing more. The "how" as in knowhow has never been something covered by a license. Open-weight is something dreamt up by people misunderstanding the basics of model creation and training, and having ideological biases against AI and/or LLMs. It is what it is, but you should know that you are technically wrong. A model released under an open source license (Apache, MIT, etc) is an open source model. Because the weights are the source of the models. Training is not "compilation". Training is the "how" as in knowhow to modify the model. Training deals with values. Source deals with everything, including values. In the past, if someone would have released a piece of software (say a PID controller algo) w/ hardcoded values, no-one would bat an eye. LLMs are just that, with billions of hardcoded values. Nothing less nothing more.
stavros 2mo ago
Agreed, it's "open weights". Open source would be to publish the entire process so you could tweak it if you wanted.
WithinReason 2mo ago
If they open sourced the training data and code but you had to train the network yourself, would that be open source?
- croemer 2mo ago
  Yes, obviously.
  - swiftcoder 2mo ago
    Even though none of us could actually afford to train it?
    - croemer 2mo ago
      Some of us might be rich, or get funding, or in the future it could be useful when training is cheaper. Open source has benefits even if you can run yourself. You can read the code for understanding/insights. Other labs could replicate/build on it.
      - gpugreg 2mo ago
        > Some of us might be rich I sure wish I had a few 100M of disposable income to train a frontier model. > or in the future it could be useful when training is cheaper. I do not think that physics will allow hardware getting that much faster. But maybe we will have different, cheaper architectures by then.
        Muromec 2mo ago
        If you would tell people at the start of 20th century how much energy we consume, they may not believe you or think it is wasteful.
        gpugreg 2mo ago
        Looks like global energy consumption has risen by an order of magnitude from 1900 to 2000: https://www.encyclopedie-energie.org/en/world-energy-consumption-1800-2000-results/#h3-1 https://www.encyclopedie-energie.org/en/world-energy-consump... Unfortunately, electricity prices did not fall by the same factor, so I fear that training a frontier model will still cause a an unsustainable dent in my monthly budget.
mlazos 2mo ago
The models are open source, it’s never been a requirement for someone to document the entire process of creating something to be “open source”. Just sharing the source, in this case, the weights, meets the criteria. Software engineering’s obsession with precise terms is actually one of the things I’m glad is dying with ai automation.
- andy99 2mo ago
  > obsession with precise terms They’re not really even being precise. The relevant software freedom, from the FSF is [] The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Ported to the model world, this is fulfilled by sharing the weights and implementation. There’s almost nothing that having the training data gets you (other than actually training it). The weights plus a reference implementation let you see all the states to study the behavior, and let you fine tune it to do your bidding (the abliteration etc). The freedom is satisfied. Some might argue that without the training data you couldn’t do some classes of experiments to see how it works, say leave-one-out retraining. I’d argue things like that are not really about the model but about ML research or the class of models, which while interesting is not a free software pre-requisite. [] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms
  - j-bos 2mo ago
    Agreed, The spirit is fulfilled, as evidenced by the massive ongoing development of, effectively, new weights grown out of the sourced weights,
- nextaccountic 2mo ago
  The source is actually all training data, plus the software used for training, including some scripts or instructions to run the entire thing end to end on your own computer. That's what open source has always been about. The weights are the output of a program, it's a binary. It's not source.
- HPsquared 2mo ago
Almondsetat 2mo ago
Sorry, where exactly is "data" in "source"? I can understand not wanting to call it open source if they don't give you the algorithm and software used for training, but wanting the training data too? That's completely different
- croes 2mo ago
  For LLMs the training data is the source of their weights. You can‘t reproduce the LLM without the same data
  - anon373839 2mo ago
    That’s not really true. The models have source code defining their architecture and it is open-source. People keep trying to shoehorn OSS concepts onto model weights, but the concepts don’t fit because the weights aren’t software. They aren’t compiled code. They are learned parameters to use with a (very big) function that itself is expressed in the code. So they’re a very valuable asset that complements the code, but they are not the code. You could use randomly initialized weights and the software will work - it will output tokens. They just won’t have useful patterns. I don’t think OSS definitions have ever required that assets have their source included. For example, artwork is very important to a game, but nobody thinks a game is not open source if it doesn’t come with sketches and a copy of Adobe Illustrator to recreate the artwork from scratch. Edit: The distinction I would draw between models like Deepseek and models like OLMo is whether they are open science. With a model like OLMo, they have published everything you need to replicate the training experiment. Whereas Deepseek does share a lot of knowledge, but keeps a lot proprietary too.
    - pocketarc 2mo ago
      Your game example is a great one: If a game didn’t come with its 3D models, sound, level files, game data, or assets of any kind, but its engine was open source, I don’t think anyone would say “hey this game is open source”. They’d say the engine is, but that’s it. All of the above things are not code, but they are part of a game and yes, expected to be included in an open source game.
HarHarVeryFunny 2mo ago
> They didn't publish the tools they used to train the model. That's not totally true - for example Ziphu (Z.ai, developers of GLM) have published their Slime RL-training framework, developed together with Tsinghua University. https://github.com/THUDM/slime https://github.com/THUDM/slime Also, if you read Moonshot's Kimi 3 report, it does give a lot of architectural detail and details on training. https://github.com/MoonshotAI/Kimi-K3/blob/main/k3_tech_report.pdf https://github.com/MoonshotAI/Kimi-K3/blob/main/k3_tech_repo... Some discussion on this by HuggingFace here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW8-kqd2SD8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW8-kqd2SD8 Yes, we all realize that "open weights" is more accurate than "open source", and anyways the source code would not be very interesting - it's the training data and methods that mostly define these models.
fooker 2mo ago
This trope was valid maybe in 2022. Model training now is not a straight forwards process of input data -> run tools -> get model. There's a whole lot of alchemy going on. We don't quite understand what works and what doesn't. Think of it like painting with water color and having to improvise very often. The only advantage over water color is that we can revert to a working state.
- SV_BubbleTime 2mo ago
  And since none of the source is provided to make the thing, it’s not open source. Really, it’s no more open source than a free calculator. It’s free, and you can use it to no or great effect. But, you sure as hell can’t make one. So calling it open source is without question, wrong.
  - fooker 2mo ago
    There's no program you run to 'make the thing'. It's mostly ad hoc scripts and some pretty horrible hacks being run by a hundred engineers trying to improve a thousand different things at once with a hundred thousand GPUs. I'm sure once we understand the tech better, the training process will look like running a program.

by kelnos 2mo ago

charcircuit 2mo ago

The weights are the preferred form for modifying or integrating with other models. There is no obligation in open source to transitively open source all of the documentation / tools used to create the open source project. >a term that it seems nearly everyone has agreed is appropriate Models being considered open source even if the original training code / data is not released also is something almost everyone has agreed to be appropriate.

teruakohatu 2mo ago
> There is no obligation in open source to transitively open source all of the documentation / tools used to create the open source project. Open source means open source code. Open weight means a binary file dump, not unlike an exe file. There is nothing open source about it. Its like having a closed source text editor that censors certain words, and an open source text editor that censors certain words. The latter can easily be recompiled, the former requires reverse engineering. Both may give you a license to use them freely.
- Alpha3031 2mo ago
  Per the OSD definition of source code, "the source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program." which means an argument could be made (as charcircuit is making) that the weights, being the preferred form to modify, are the source. I do prefer open weights as being more precise (like, is it even really software that has source code in the first place?) but I feel like at this point the ship has sailed somewhat (though if this is something you're willing to spend your time arguing then... moral support I guess?)
  - ciupicri 2mo ago
    You can also edit/patch binary executables, but no one says about that software that is open source.
    - Muromec 2mo ago
      You can, but its not the first preference
    - applfanboysbgon 2mo ago
      Incidentally, I do. I fucking hate the open source maximalists like Stallman who suggest that not having source code is equivalent to not having control over what runs on your computer. But you always[1] have control over what runs on your computer. Reverse engineer it if you care so much! Every form of DRM is inevitably defeated, because you do have control over program execution, regardless of access to the source code. Stallman's argument seems more lazy and entitled than principled. [1] ...setting aside hardware attestation bullshit, which does need to die in a fire.
- charcircuit 2mo ago
  I think you are failing to see how the weights are the preferred form of working with a model. It's like if I shared a png with others to use as a meme template. Even if I don't share the source code to photoshop other people can use that "binary file dump" to make derivative images of their own with it.
  - andy99 2mo ago
    I feel like the arguments being made about sharing the training data are from people who don’t have any experience training ML models and have never worked with weights. The biggest reason I have seen that people want the data is to complain about some aspect of it (copyright, bias, etc) I would be very interested to hear someone explain what freedom it is they need the training data to enjoy.
dietr1ch 2mo ago
> The weights are the preferred form for modifying or integrating with other models It's the 2nd time I hear this argument and I'm already fed up with it Is it the preferred way only because training is expensive? It's like saying binaries are the preferred way of modifying program because you can't afford to have a fast enough machine to compile it yourself. Most people don't have resources to compile their own browser, but what makes some browsers open is access to the source. Maybe it's the preferred way because the people sharing models are themselves working with weights and no data?
- NitpickLawyer 2mo ago
  > Is it the preferred way only because training is expensive? No, it's the preferred way because that's literally how you train it. Contrary to popular misconceptions, you don't "compile" data into weights. You initialize a model (based on architecture, config, etc) and then you modify it via training. But crucially they (i.e. model creators) modify it the same way (technically speaking) as you would. That's what the license grants you. Nothing less, nothing more. The "how" as in knowhow has never been something covered by a license. Open-weight is something dreamt up by people misunderstanding the basics of model creation and training, and having ideological biases against AI and/or LLMs. It is what it is, but you should know that you are technically wrong. A model released under an open source license (Apache, MIT, etc) is an open source model. Because the weights are the source of the models. Training is not "compilation". Training is the "how" as in knowhow to modify the model. Training deals with values. Source deals with everything, including values. In the past, if someone would have released a piece of software (say a PID controller algo) w/ hardcoded values, no-one would bat an eye. LLMs are just that, with billions of hardcoded values. Nothing less nothing more.

stavros 2mo ago

Agreed, it's "open weights". Open source would be to publish the entire process so you could tweak it if you wanted.

WithinReason 2mo ago

If they open sourced the training data and code but you had to train the network yourself, would that be open source?

croemer 2mo ago
Yes, obviously.
- swiftcoder 2mo ago
  Even though none of us could actually afford to train it?
  - croemer 2mo ago
    Some of us might be rich, or get funding, or in the future it could be useful when training is cheaper. Open source has benefits even if you can run yourself. You can read the code for understanding/insights. Other labs could replicate/build on it.
    - gpugreg 2mo ago
      > Some of us might be rich I sure wish I had a few 100M of disposable income to train a frontier model. > or in the future it could be useful when training is cheaper. I do not think that physics will allow hardware getting that much faster. But maybe we will have different, cheaper architectures by then.
      - Muromec 2mo ago
        If you would tell people at the start of 20th century how much energy we consume, they may not believe you or think it is wasteful.
        gpugreg 2mo ago
        Looks like global energy consumption has risen by an order of magnitude from 1900 to 2000: https://www.encyclopedie-energie.org/en/world-energy-consumption-1800-2000-results/#h3-1 https://www.encyclopedie-energie.org/en/world-energy-consump... Unfortunately, electricity prices did not fall by the same factor, so I fear that training a frontier model will still cause a an unsustainable dent in my monthly budget.

mlazos 2mo ago

The models are open source, it’s never been a requirement for someone to document the entire process of creating something to be “open source”. Just sharing the source, in this case, the weights, meets the criteria. Software engineering’s obsession with precise terms is actually one of the things I’m glad is dying with ai automation.

andy99 2mo ago
> obsession with precise terms They’re not really even being precise. The relevant software freedom, from the FSF is [] The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Ported to the model world, this is fulfilled by sharing the weights and implementation. There’s almost nothing that having the training data gets you (other than actually training it). The weights plus a reference implementation let you see all the states to study the behavior, and let you fine tune it to do your bidding (the abliteration etc). The freedom is satisfied. Some might argue that without the training data you couldn’t do some classes of experiments to see how it works, say leave-one-out retraining. I’d argue things like that are not really about the model but about ML research or the class of models, which while interesting is not a free software pre-requisite. [] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms
- j-bos 2mo ago
  Agreed, The spirit is fulfilled, as evidenced by the massive ongoing development of, effectively, new weights grown out of the sourced weights,
nextaccountic 2mo ago
The source is actually all training data, plus the software used for training, including some scripts or instructions to run the entire thing end to end on your own computer. That's what open source has always been about. The weights are the output of a program, it's a binary. It's not source.
HPsquared 2mo ago

Almondsetat 2mo ago

Sorry, where exactly is "data" in "source"? I can understand not wanting to call it open source if they don't give you the algorithm and software used for training, but wanting the training data too? That's completely different

croes 2mo ago
For LLMs the training data is the source of their weights. You can‘t reproduce the LLM without the same data
- anon373839 2mo ago
  That’s not really true. The models have source code defining their architecture and it is open-source. People keep trying to shoehorn OSS concepts onto model weights, but the concepts don’t fit because the weights aren’t software. They aren’t compiled code. They are learned parameters to use with a (very big) function that itself is expressed in the code. So they’re a very valuable asset that complements the code, but they are not the code. You could use randomly initialized weights and the software will work - it will output tokens. They just won’t have useful patterns. I don’t think OSS definitions have ever required that assets have their source included. For example, artwork is very important to a game, but nobody thinks a game is not open source if it doesn’t come with sketches and a copy of Adobe Illustrator to recreate the artwork from scratch. Edit: The distinction I would draw between models like Deepseek and models like OLMo is whether they are open science. With a model like OLMo, they have published everything you need to replicate the training experiment. Whereas Deepseek does share a lot of knowledge, but keeps a lot proprietary too.
  - pocketarc 2mo ago
    Your game example is a great one: If a game didn’t come with its 3D models, sound, level files, game data, or assets of any kind, but its engine was open source, I don’t think anyone would say “hey this game is open source”. They’d say the engine is, but that’s it. All of the above things are not code, but they are part of a game and yes, expected to be included in an open source game.

HarHarVeryFunny 2mo ago

> They didn't publish the tools they used to train the model. That's not totally true - for example Ziphu (Z.ai, developers of GLM) have published their Slime RL-training framework, developed together with Tsinghua University. https://github.com/THUDM/slime https://github.com/THUDM/slime Also, if you read Moonshot's Kimi 3 report, it does give a lot of architectural detail and details on training. https://github.com/MoonshotAI/Kimi-K3/blob/main/k3_tech_report.pdf https://github.com/MoonshotAI/Kimi-K3/blob/main/k3_tech_repo... Some discussion on this by HuggingFace here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW8-kqd2SD8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW8-kqd2SD8 Yes, we all realize that "open weights" is more accurate than "open source", and anyways the source code would not be very interesting - it's the training data and methods that mostly define these models.

fooker 2mo ago

This trope was valid maybe in 2022. Model training now is not a straight forwards process of input data -> run tools -> get model. There's a whole lot of alchemy going on. We don't quite understand what works and what doesn't. Think of it like painting with water color and having to improvise very often. The only advantage over water color is that we can revert to a working state.

SV_BubbleTime 2mo ago
And since none of the source is provided to make the thing, it’s not open source. Really, it’s no more open source than a free calculator. It’s free, and you can use it to no or great effect. But, you sure as hell can’t make one. So calling it open source is without question, wrong.
- fooker 2mo ago
  There's no program you run to 'make the thing'. It's mostly ad hoc scripts and some pretty horrible hacks being run by a hundred engineers trying to improve a thousand different things at once with a hundred thousand GPUs. I'm sure once we understand the tech better, the training process will look like running a program.