Office space meme:
“If y’all could stop calling an LLM “open source” just because they published the weights… that would be great.”
Office space meme:
“If y’all could stop calling an LLM “open source” just because they published the weights… that would be great.”
Arguably they are a new type of software, which is why the old categories do not align perfectly. Instead of arguing over how to best gatekeep the old name, we need a new classification system.
There were e|forts. Facebook didn’t like those. (Since their models wouldn’t be considered open source anymore)
I don’t care what Facebook likes or doesn’t like. The OSS community is us.
… Statistical engines are older than personal computers, with the first statistical package developed in 1957. And AI professionals would have called them trained models. The interpreter is code, the weights are not. We have had terms for these things for ages.
Is it even really software, or just a datablob with a dedicated interpreter?
Isn’t all software just data plus algorithms?
Well, yes, but usually it’s the code that’s the main deal, and the part that’s open, and the data is what you do with it. Here, the training weights seem to be “it”, so to speak.
The weights are the (rough) equivalent of a binary. If anything this is shareware more than it’s open source.
Yes. The algorithms are hard wired into the processor, and the rest is all data.