Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by samat | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

samat·

Article confuses open source models with open weights models.

Not the same thing.

It’s used right in the articles body, but title is misleading.

View on HN

Literally no one cares. There are "full" open certified GMO free grass fed training data blah blah models. Apertus, Olmo, etc. No one cares. For all intents and purposes people use the term to describe a model that you can run locally and are allowed to modify and re-release. The rest is useless semantics. No one can "rEpRoDuCe" a model anyway.

No-one cares to quit social media or stop using Windows, but it’s a goal worthy of discussion all the same.

The name is bad, doesn’t even make any fucking sense and it gives open source a bad rep.

I wouldn't say that no one cares, but obviously many fewer people care when the cost of "recompiling" a model from its open source training pipeline is so high. Also, if you only have the weights, you can still use it to generate training data for a new model (i.e. distillation) so it's inherently less locked down then closed source binaries were.

open source vs source-available. Companies taking an extremely cautious approach to AI can't use source data that is potentially a violation of copyright (pending worldwide court decisions and/or regulation on said topic). Although that cat is already out of the bag for basically every stock-traded company using LLMs trained on non-licensed data, so I don't see there being much actual risk in using them.

I was advocating for "available weight" as a value neutral term for a while.

I gave up. No one cares. And no one will ever tell the truth about the training anyways.

Substantial and growing freedom beats zero freedom ever again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com