Meh. Custom architecture with a non-commercial, research-only license. Qwen-2.5 3B also has a research-only license, but is way ahead of this model on almost all of the benchmarks.
In my eyes, having a completely novel and reproducible model from end to end, including its dataset is great news.
So we can't egg AMD just because they did something better in some cases and worse in others?
They released a model from end to end and shown that they can compete now. Who cares about the business applications. That can come later.
The other actors abuse the definition of Open Source, too. Not only in AI, even. So, we shall denounce others with the same force, but we don't, because of the broken window theorem.
AMD is already an underdog, so whatever they do has no merit, and worthy of booing. Do masses boo NVIDIA for their abuse of the ecosystem? Did Intel got the same treatment when they were choking everyone else unethically?
Of course not.. Because they are/were the incumbents. They had no broken windows.
I don’t care what the masses are doing.
When other companies abuse the phrase “open source” they should be called out on it.
And I’m complaining about AMD’s use of it here. Just because they’re an underdog doesn’t mean they get a pass.
But at the end of the day their released model still has restrictions on what use cases you can use the model in. If this was a piece of source code rather than an AI model it would not count as open source. And just because it’s AI model I do not think it should have a different standard.
[1]: https://huggingface.co/amd/Instella-3B-Instruct/raw/main/LIC...
https://www.licenses.ai/blog/2023/3/3/ai-pubs-rail-licenses
https://www.licenses.ai/rail-license-generator
The intent of the license is to show the techniques used in the project and to provide the results in a form that they can be used to further development of other projects but not be used themselves.
The TLDR of the license is "here's the model and the sources. use it to help make your own models but don't use our model directly"
No it isn't. It's a ResearchRAIL-MS derived license with lots of additional restrictions piled on.
> The TLDR of the license is "here's the model and the sources. use it to help make your own models but don't use our model directly"
ICYMI, it's a ResearchRAIL-MS derived license and not a ResearchRAIL-M derived license. All the onerous restrictions apply to the model as well as the source code.
You can make an MS license in their license generator by selecting ResearchRAIL and checking both the model and source buttons.
The only thing you might pick on AMDs one is "no obfuscation" clause which is not controversial at all.
(Yes, I diffed with a self-generated RAIL-MS license).
Yes.
> The terms are really broad and onerous even if one wants to use it for purely non-commercial, academic purposes.
No. It's just legalese to prevent commercial use, abuse of models and prevention of responsibility. As a person who sits in an academic research center, I see no problems at first blush.
I'm not an AMD employee, so I can't tell about their API access.
People here see student startups, I see tons of non-commercial research networks from where I sit. So the license is not absurd from where I look.
To be clear, I am happy AMD is trying to get in the game. I just dont feel this model will gain as much use as it would have had with a permissive license and I hope that AMD will switch to better licenses (like Qwen or Llama models have also done in the past).