Words mean what people use them to mean. Ship has sailed whether you approve or not.
For example, if I was being pedantic:
> nobody seems to care about using the right words in only this context.
"nobody" would include you.
And then I might complain about we use the word "weight" for something massless, or how "bugs me" is *ento*mologically incorrect: https://xkcd.com/1012/
This is of course not a good use of time. I wonder if illustrating the point about how language is dynamic and meanings are descriptive not proscriptive, was a good use?
"Communicating": https://xkcd.com/1860/
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/descriptive-vs-presc...
Prescriptively, a "model weight" weighs nothing. Descriptively, this is stupid: a new meaning was created by common use.
*Common* use says the weights you can download and run locally are "open source". May not like it, but it's not one person acting alone; and neither are the objectors to the shifting language, it's just the former is more "common" than the latter.
Within tech circles, open weight != open source. Outside them, they’re synonyms.
The correct battle would have been weights + regime. But extremists insisted on data, too, which left Meta as the only other real voice arguing with anything practical. They had open weights. I think eventually open use was negotiated and that closed the case except for the folks still arguing about how to pronounce GIF.
I could rerun Kimi K3 with full transformers instead of the hybrid mamba architecture and it would only get better.