18
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
18 points (100.0% liked)
Futurology
1943 readers
108 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The model is, in the sense you can modify it. Further train it, integrate in your app, etc. But the recipe to make the model is not.
And yes, it's less open source than we can think at first sight.
Isn't every software binary open source then? Since you can open it in a hex editor and modify it
But tou don't have permission to do. And hacking a binary is much more difficult than specializing a model, for instance.
Yeah, that's kind of AI companies' definition of open source... Other companies just have "open" in their name for historical reasons. The FSF doesn't really agree ( https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-is-working-on-freedom-in-machine-learning-applications ) and neither do I. It's "open weight". Or I'd need to see the datasets and training scripts as well.
Yeah, "open weight" seems a more appropriate label. It still seems better than a fully proprietary system, but calling it open source without clarification is misleading.