this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
16 points (100.0% liked)
technology
23313 readers
92 users here now
On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020
Rules:
- 1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct.
Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
- 2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
- 3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
- 4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
- 5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
- 6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
- 7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I reject the classification of any of these LLMs as open source. If an LLM's training data isn't bundled with it under the same license then that LLM is not open source by any reasonable definition of open source. The Open Source Initiative (industry group with the objective of co-opting FOSS into free labor for capitalists) is trying to push this ridiculous conception that if you can run a LLM locally then it is open source. It makes absolutely no sense that an impenetrable list of weights counts as source code. Those weights are the derived product of the training data and the learning algorithm, which is readily analogous to compilation. Here's a good longer post about this: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-open-data-necessary-source-ai-tom-callaway-stzcc/