339

About as open source as a binary blob without the training data (slrpnk.net)

submitted 1 month ago by Prunebutt@slrpnk.net to c/memes@lemmy.world

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Office space meme:

"If y'all could stop calling an LLM "open source" just because they published the weights... that would be great."

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] WraithGear@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Seems kinda reductive about what makes it different from most other LLM’s. Reading the comments i see the issue is that the training data is why some consider it not open source, but isn’t that just trained from the other AI? It’s not why this AI is special. And the way it uses that data, afaik, is open and editable, and the license to use it is open. Whats the issue here?

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 month ago

Seems kinda reductive about what makes it different from most other LLM’s

The other LLMs aren't open source, either.

isn’t that just trained from the other AI?

Most certainly not. If it were, it wouldn't output coherent text, since LLM output degenerates if you human-centipede its' outputs.

And the way it uses that data, afaik, is open and editable, and the license to use it is open.

From that standpoint, every binary blob should be considered "open source", since the machine instructions are readable in RAM.

[-] WraithGear@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Well that’s the argument.
Ai condensing ai is what is talked about here, from my understanding deepseek is two parts and they start with known datasets in use, and the two parts bounce ideas against each other and calculates fitness. So degrading recursive results is being directly tackled here. But training sets are tokenized gathered data. The gathering of data sets is a rights issue, but this is not part of the conversation here.
It could be i don’t have a complete concept on what is open source, but from looking into it, all the boxes are checked. The data set is not what is different, it’s just data. Deepseek say its weights are available and open to be changed (https://api-docs.deepseek.com/news/news250120) but the processes that handle that data at unprecedented efficiency us what makes it special

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The point of open source is access to reproducability the weights are the end products (like a binary blob), you need to supply a way on how the end product is created to be open source.

[-] WraithGear@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So its not how it tokenized the data you are looking for, it’s not how the weights are applied you want, and it’s not how it functions to structure the output you want because these are all open… it’s the entirety of the bulk unfiltered data you want. Of which deepseek was provided from other ai projects for initial training, can be changed to fit user needs, and doesnt touch on at all how this LLM is different from other LLM’s? This would be as i understand it… like saying that an open source game emulator can’t be open source because Nintendo games are encapsulated? I don’t consider the training data to be the LLM. I consider the system that manipulated that data to be the LLM. Is that where the difference in opinion is?

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago

it’s the entirety of the bulk unfiltered data you want

Or more realistically: a description of how you could source the data.

doesnt touch on at all how this LLM is different from other LLM’s?

Correct. Llama isn't open source, either.

like saying that an open source game emulator can’t be open source because Nintendo games are encapsulated

Not at all. It's like claiming an emulator is open source, because it has a plugin system, but you need a closed source build dependency that the developer doesn't disclose to the puplic.

[-] WraithGear@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Source build dependency… so you don’t have a problem with the LLM at all! You have a problem with the data collection process or the pre-training! So an emulator can’t be open source if the methodology on how the developers discovered how to read Nintendo ROM’s was not disclosed? Or which games were dissected in order to reverse engineer that info? I don’t consider that a prerequisite to say an emulator is open

So if i say… remove the data set from deepseek what remains would be considered open source by you?

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

So an emulator can’t be open source if the methodology on how the developers discovered how to read Nintendo ROM’s was discovered?

No. The emulator is open source if it supplies the way on hou to get the binary in the end. I don't know how else to explain it to you: No LLM is open source.

[-] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A closer analogy would be only providing the binary output of the emulator build and calling it open source. If you can't reproduce building the output from what they provide in what way is it reproducible? The model is the output, the training data and algorithm to build the model based on the training data are the input.

Edit: Say I have a Java project I want to open source. Normally (oversimplifying a bit) it goes .java source files used with a compiler to build intermediate bytecode in .class files, then there's a just in time (JIT) compilation to create the binary code as it runs in the JVM. It's not open source if I only share the class files, even if I can use them to recreate source files that can be recompiled into the same class files. Starting at an intermediate step of the process isn't the source.

[-] WraithGear@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Would it? Not sure how that would be a better analogy. The argument is that it’s nearly all open… but it still does not count because the data set before it’s manipulated by the LLM (in my analogy the data set the emulator is using would be a Nintendo ROM) is not open. A data set that if provided would be so massive, it would render the point of tokenization pointless and be completely unusable by literally ANYONE without multiple data centers redlining for WEEKS. Under that standard of scrutiny not only could there never be an LLM that would qualify, but projects that are considered open source would not be. Thus making the distinction meaningless.

An emulator without a ROM mounted is still an emulator, even if not usable.

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

It’s just AI haters trying to find any way to disparage AI. They’re trying to be “holier than thou”.

The model weights are data, not code. It’s perfectly fine to call it open source even though you don’t have the means to reproduce the data from scratch. You are allowed to modify and distribute said modifications so it’s functionally free (as in freedom) anyway.

[-] WraithGear@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Right. You could train it yourself too. Though its scope would be limited based on capability. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Taking a class? Feed it your text book. Or other available sources, and it can help you on that subject. Just because it’s hard didn’t mean it’s not open

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 month ago

You could train it yourself too.

How, without information on the dataset and the training code?

[-] WraithGear@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So i am leaning as much as i can here, so bear with me. But it accepts tokenized data and structures it via a transformer as a json file or sun such. The weights are a binary file that’s separate and is used to, well, modify the tokenized data to generate outcomes. As long as you used a compatible tokenization structure, and weights structure, you could create a new training set. But that can be done with any LLM. You can’t pull the data from this just as you can’t make wheat from dissecting bread. But they provide the tools to set your own data, and the way the LLM handles that data is novel, due to being hamstrung by US sanctions. A “necessity is the mother of invention” and all that. Running comparable ai’s on inferior hardware and much smaller budget is what makes this one stand out, not the training data.

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It's still not open source. No matter how extendable the weights are.

[-] WraithGear@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I mean, this does not help me understand.

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

https://slrpnk.net/comment/13455788

Edit: this one is a more thorough explanation: https://lemmy.ml/comment/16365208

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Training code created by the community always pops up shortly after release. It has happened for every major model so far. Additionally you have never needed the original training dataset to continue training a model.

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago

So, Ocarina of Time is considered open source now, since it's been decompiled by the community, or what?

Community effort and the ability to build on top of stuff doesn't make anything open source.

Also: initial training data is important.

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Let's transfer your bullshirt take to the kernel, shall we?

The kernel is instructions, not code. It’s perfectly fine to call it open source even though you don’t have the code to reproduce the kernel from scratch. You are allowed to modify and distribute said modifications so it’s functionally free (as in freedom) anyway.

🤡

Edit: It's more that so-called "AI" stakeholders want to launder it's reputation with the "open source" label.

[-] Oisteink@feddit.nl 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Source - it’s about open source, not access to the database

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 month ago

So, where's the source, then?

[-] stinky@redlemmy.com 4 points 1 month ago

[-] maplebar@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Yeah, this shit drives me crazy. Putting aside the fact that it all runs off stolen data from regular people who are being exploited, most of this "AI" shit is basically just freeware if anything, it's about as "open source" as Winamp was back in the day.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

It’s as open source as Candy Crush is today.

[+] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz -29 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Uuuuh… why?

Do you only accept open source code if you can see every key press every developer made?

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 56 points 1 month ago

Open source means you can recreate the binaries yourself. Neiter Facebook. Nor the devs of deepseek published which training data they used, nor their training algorithm.

[-] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 19 points 1 month ago

They published the source code needed run the model. It’s open source in the way that anyone can download the model, run it locally, and further build on it.

Training from scratch costs millions.

[-] Zikeji@programming.dev 8 points 1 month ago

Open source isn't really applicable to LLM models IMO.

There is open weights (the model), and available training data, and other nuances.

They actually went a step further and provided a very thorough breakdown of the training process, which does mean others could similarly train models from scratch with their own training data. HuggingFace seems to be doing just that as well. https://huggingface.co/blog/open-r1

[-] BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago

It's worth noting that OpenR1 have themselves said that DeepSeek didn't release any code for training the models, nor any of the crucial hyperparameters used. So even if you did have suitable training data, you wouldn't be able to replicate it without re-discovering what they did.

OSI specifically makes a carve-out that allows models to be considered "open source" under their open source AI definition without providing the training data, so when it comes to AI, open source is really about providing the code that kicks off training, checkpoints if used, and details about training data curation so that a comparable dataset can be compiled for replicating the results.

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 month ago

They published the source code needed run the model.

Yeah, but not to train it

anyone can download the model, run it locally, and further build on it.

Yeah, it's about as open source as binary blobs.

Training from scratch costs millions.

So what? You still can gleam something if you know the dataset on which the model has been trained.

If software is hard to compile, can you keep the source code closed and still call software "open source"?

[-] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 1 points 1 month ago

I agree the bad part is that they didn’t provide the script to train the model from scratch.

Yeah, it's about as open source as binary blobs.

This is a great starting point for further improvements of the model. Most AI research is done with pretrained weights used as basis. Few are training models completely from scratch. The model is built with Torch, so anyone should be able to fine tune the model on custom data sets.

[-] serenissi@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A software analogy:

Someone designs a compiler, makes it open source. Make an open runtime for it. 'Obtain' some source code with unclear license. Compiles it with the compiler and releases the compiled byte code that can run with the runtime on free OS. Do you call the program open source? Definitely it is more open than something that requires proprietary inside use only compiler and closed runtine and sometimes you can't access even the binary; it runs on their servers. It depends on perspective.

ps: the compiler takes ages and costs mils in hardware.

edit: typo

[-] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago

I think a more appropriate analogy is if you make an open source game. With the game you have made textures, because what is a game without textured surfaces? You include the binary jpeg images along with the source code.

You’ve made the textures with photoshop, which is a closed source application. The textures also features elements of stock photos. You don’t provide the original stock photos.

Anyone playing the game is free to replace the textures with their own. The game will have a different feel, but it’s still a playable game. Anyone is also free to modify the existing textures.

Would you consider this game closed source?

[-] Ageroth@reddthat.com 2 points 1 month ago

I'm going to take your point to the extreme.

It's only open source if the camera that took the picture that is used in the stock image that was used to create the texture is open source.
You used a fully mechanical camera and chemical flash powder? Better publish that design patent and include the chemistry of the flash powder!

[-] Oisteink@feddit.nl 1 points 1 month ago

And looking at mobile games like Tacticus, there are loads of people with millions to burn on hobbies

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Eh, it seems like it fits to me. We casually refer to all manner of data as "open source" even if we lack the ability to specifically recreate it. It might be technically more accurate to say "open data" but we usually don't, so I can't be too mad at these folks for also not.

There's huge deaths of USGS data that's shared as open data that I absolutely cannot ever replicate.

If we're specifically saying that open source means you can recreate the binaries, then data is fundamentally not able to be open source, since it distinctly lacks any form of executable content.

[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

If we're specifically saying that open source means you can recreate the binaries, then data is fundamentally not able to be open source

lol, are you claiming data isn't reproducable? XD

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 38 points 1 month ago

Do you call binary-only software with EULA "Open Source" too?

[-] kabi@lemm.ee 28 points 1 month ago

Dude, the CPU instructions are right there, of course it's open source.

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

No, but I do call a CC licensed png file open source even if the author didn’t share the original layered Photoshop file.

Model weights are data, not code.

[-] breakingcups@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

You'd be wrong. Open source has a commonly accepted definition and a CC licensed PNG does not fall under it. It's copyleft, yes, but not open source.

I do agree that model weights are data and can be given a license, including CC0. There might be some argument about how one can assign a license to weights derived from copyrighted works, but I won't get into that right now. I wouldn't call even the most liberally licensed model weights open-source though.

[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Fair enough, it’s not source code, so open source doesn’t apply.

[-] BakedCatboy@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It really comes down to this part of the "Open Source" definition:

The source code [released] must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program

A compiled binary is not the format in which a programmer would prefer to modify the program - it's much preferred to have the text file which you can edit in a text editor. Just because it's possible to reverse engineer the binary and make changes by patching bytes doesn't make it count. Any programmer would much rather have the source file instead.

Similarly, the released weights of an AI model are not easy to modify, and are not the "preferred format" that the internal programmers use to make changes to the AI mode. They typically are making changes to the code that does the training and making changes to the training dataset. So for the purpose of calling an AI "open source", the training code and data used to produce the weights are considered the "preferred format", and is what needs to be released for it to really be open source. Internal engineers also typically use training checkpoints, so that they can roll back the model and redo some of the later training steps without redoing all training from the beginning - this is also considered part of the preferred format if it's used.

OpenR1, which is attempting to recreate R1, notes: No training code was released by DeepSeek, so it is unknown which hyperparameters work best and how they differ across different model families and scales.

I would call "open weights" models actually just "self hostable" models instead of open source.

[-] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 month ago

Thank you for the explanation. I didn’t know about the ‘preferred format’ definition or how AI models are changed at all.

[-] plumbercraic@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 month ago

Thank you for taking the time to write this. Making the rests reproducable and possible to improve on is important.

[-] joyjoy@lemm.ee 21 points 1 month ago

Open Source (generally and for AI) has an established definition.

https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition

[-] barkingspiders@infosec.pub 14 points 1 month ago

This is exactly it, open source is not just the availability of the machine instructions, it's also the ability to recreate the machine instructions. Anything less is incomplete.

It strikes me as a variation on the "free as in beer versus free as in speech" line that gets thrown around a lot. These weights allow you to use the model for free and you are free to modify the existing weights but being unable to re-create the original means it falls short of being truly open source. It is free as in beer, but that's it.

[-] unknown1234_5@kbin.earth 13 points 1 month ago

it's only open source if the source code is open.

[-] _stranger_@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

source control management software like git lets you see basically this, yes.

this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025

339 points (93.8% liked)

memes

12412 readers

1257 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civil

No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politics

This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent reposts

Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No bots

No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads

No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

!tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
!lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
!linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
!comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world

The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website