Isn't his also closed src?
Of course, GP is ignoring that Meta is far more open than its direct competitors (MSFT, GOOG, OpenAI).
they should put their entire code on github and show how it was trained, architecture and everything else.
also, the most important thing about a model is not it's architecture, but the dataset it was trained on. that is the "it" in a model.
You know that distributing all the data would be illegal copyright infringement, right? Also, its not like they could distribute the (petabytes?) worth of data to every rando who asks.
Do you just not want open weight models to exist, and you are using a fake call for it to be more open, so as to get this stuff all shut down, or what?
Because anyone who actually supports open "anything" would understand this, instead of pedantically arguing about the definition of open source and by suggesting things that both aren't possible and would make the release of these models much less likely.
We want words to mean things. model available != open source, If you go to a restaurant and order the beef and you get the fish, what's wrong, it's still food, just eat it. Don't be pedantic, otherwise the cook isn't going to make food anymore. If you're 10 and your parents made you dinner that might pass, but if you're an adult and go to a restaurant where you're paying with your own hard earned money, that's not how it works.
They don't have to distribute the data directly, Stability AI has said they used the LAION-5B Dataset. Just like I could say I read Harry Potter without giving you a copy, and can say that it says "the boy who lived" without violating copyright.
Its not because he said things.
Instead it is that (if implemented) the things that he is advocating for would actually significantly reduce the amount of open-whatever-you-want-to-call-it models available as most of it would all get shut down.
If these people don't want these models to exist and they are just using this concern trolling to get rid of all these AI models, then I wish they would just say so openly.
Because that would be the result of their positions. It would be a destruction of most of the more-open AI models that we have available today and an end to the open-whatever AI industry.
If thats what you want, just say it, and then we can talk about the pros and cons of a completely centralized AI ecosystem that is only controlled by OpenAI, Google, and the government and how if the destruction of the AI startup space that is reliant on the models given out by meta/ect is good or bad.
Trying to paint me into a corner with a false dichotomy, that if I want it to be called model available instead of open source, and that in doing so, I want a dystopian future where megacorps have AGI and we're all at their mercy isn't going to work. I don't want the models to not be available, what I want is to see what's being used to create the models, the source, if you will, and thus the alignment side of the source, and why it won't answer "how do I make cocaine", as if I'm going to go off and somehow become Tony Montoya. We may never get that, but that's what calling it open source and have it mean that would entail. Making the models available to the plebs is a generous thing for Mark to do, but that doesn't mean we can't ask for more. Or maybe we shouldn't; and just be grateful for his benevolence, because it's not like OpenAI has done the same with ChatGPT. I will give them credit for Whisper though.