Hacker News Reader

> including the open-source models by Meta

"open-source"

Infinitely more open than the ones from "Open"-Ai

I don't think Open Source is a gradient, it's a boolean. Either something is Open Source or it's not. Neither Llama nor OpenAI is Open Source.

I disagree, it's functionally a gradient because the label encompasses different assumptions when different people say it. (It's even more vague than the US' "freedom of speech", since it lacks a bunch of case-law precedent.)

You're saying clear-cut objective lines exist--where exactly do you believe they are placed?

Not saying this is the "objective truth", but the OSD does a good job of helping you find a clear-cut line when something is "Open Source" (in common parlor) or not: https://opensource.org/osd/

Again, not everyone agrees with those of course, and I guess that's fine. But I think most software developers who are in the FOSS ecosystem could agree that Llama is not "Open Source" as most people understand the term.

Freely readable and mutable weights doesn’t have the same ring to it.

God forbid we could be accurate with the terms we use.

"Open access"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com