Hacker News Reader

Comment by OJFord | Hacker News Reader

It really should shouldn't it? I'm quite ML-naïve, but surely providing the model without 'training code or training data' is just like providing a self-hostable binary without the source code? Nobody calls that open source, it's not even source available.

View on HN

It is widely believed (and in some cases acknowledged) that a lot of models are trained on copyrighted data scraped from the web. In some cases, even scrapes of ebook piracy websites - google 'books3' to learn more.

Some companies (such as those working on AI) believe this is legal, others (such as the copyright holders to those books) believe it isn't.

In any case, IMHO it's unlikely any cutting edge models will be offering us their training data any time soon.

Can training data be generated from llm,with right prompt?

That’s why they’re called open as in free to use how you wish, not open source where the source of the training is also provided.

But my point is there's no analogy for that that we call open? It's like self-hostable, or free (as in beer).

That’s a fair comment, maybe free-to-use is more appropriate.

Yes, and there has been some discussion of that

Meta’s LLaMa 2 license is not Open Source https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36820122

Man, people will find anything to complain about.

I'm not complaining, I'm unlikely ever to use it (regardless of how open or not it is) so it doesn't really matter to me, just surprised to learn what people mean by 'open' in this context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com