I just think it's a bit misleading to call something "open-source (xyz)" if it wholly depends on a proprietary service that provides (xyz). If you made an open-source implementation of the Discord client, it'd be misleading to call it "Open-source direct messaging and communities app". At least in that example it would be possible to reimplement the backend and make it truly open-source, but so far nobody has been able to reimplement GPT-4V in a way that it's nearly as useful. Hence why some people get super excited when they see "Open-source [...] AI (using vision)" and super disappointed when it's just another wrapper for OpenAI

No. That is a tone-deaf and disingenuous interpretation. If I read “open-source AI copilot”, I pretty strictly read this as implying that the model is open-source. And I’m far from an open-source purist! Hell, I’ve never once made a snarky comment about OpenAI “not being open” or anything!

This is definitely clickbait. Do you see any other GitHub url on HN that need to stick "open source" on its title?

Why the need to fork it, though? Shouldn't it be as simple as changing the URL of the API? If it is not so simple, then perhaps time for some standardization?