"Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks around it and it will get italicized."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

To be called open source under the new Open Source AI Definition. They'd need to release the: Data Information, Code and Parameters. https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition

I like looneysquash's viewpoint about the definition of open source AI. You will need to have all parts involved open-sourced to make a model "open", not just the weights:

> The trained model is object code. Think of it as Java byte code. You have some sort of engine that runs the model. That's like the JVM, and the JIT. And you have the program that takes the training data and trains the model. That's your compiler, your javac, your Makefile and your make. And you have the training data itself, that's your source code.

> Each of the above pieces has its own source code. And the training set is also source code. All those pieces have to be open to have a fully open system. If only the training data is open, that's like having the source, but the compiler is proprietary. If everything but the training set is open, well, that's like giving me gcc and calling it Microsoft Word.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41952722

Oh my gosh THANK YOU - a repository of paper images and weights is not open source

I think they also published the training methodology as well - that others have reproduced, no? The only thing that I'm not sure is their low level nvidia CTX training code was released under the license - but in order for a third party to corroborate the training and testing they would need to have that code (and likely the training data as well) would they not?

True. But at the same time, it is more open than "Open" AI. Or even LLAMA.