> E.g, Mistral Nemo can't be considered open source, because there is no Mistral Nemo without the training data set.
Right here - that's your logical conflict. By downloading the model file, you can run it, thereby you can "have Mistral Nemo" even without having the training data, contradicting your statement -> your statement is invalid.
@dandi8 I'm not changing the definition of open-source. And I'm not saying models are magic. Please take your strawmen back. You are the one saying that dataset is source code, and you have no backing for this argument. I agree that dataset is the "source for training", but that doesn't make it "source code" as per the open-source licenses. And the tools are not the compiler. Just because something was created from something else, that doesn't turn it into "source code".
@dandi8 surprise surprise, LLMs are not a classic compiled software, in case you haven't noticed yet. You can't just transfer the same notions between these two. That's like wondering why quantum physics doesn't work the same as agriculture.
Think of it as a database. If you have an open-source social network, all tools and code is published, free to use, but the value of the network is in the posts, the accounts, the people who keep coming back. The data in the database is not the source code
> The training data set is a vital part of the source code because without it, the rest of it is useless.
This is simply false. Dataset is not the "source code" of a model. You need to delete this notion from your brain. Model is not the same as a compiled binary.
@sunstoned Please don't assume anything, it's not healthy.
To answer your question - it depends on the license of that binary. You can't just automatically consider something open-source. Look at the license. Meta, Microsoft and Google routinely misrepresents their licenses, calling them "open-source" even when they aren't.
But the main point is that you can put closed source license on a model trained from open-source data. Unfortunately. You are barking under the wrong tree.
@tyler Did you just break some code of conduct by telling me to F off? For what exactly? Arguing for open source software here on the open source community? Interesting...
@tyler Also note how you went from "we want projects with users" to "oh it's so hard to provide services to so many users".. at least stick to your argument. One thing is for sure - actively keeping users away from open platforms is not going to increase the users on these open platforms. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Do what you want, I'm just pointing out that you seem to be working against yourself.
@magic_lobster_party And yet, here we are talking about the use-case that is best fulfilled by Bitcoin...
@magic_lobster_party I mean.. cryptocurrency fans are also regularly bullied to the point that it's a bit risky to even mention my preference. And having a bitcoin wallet costs nothing, so the wikipedia decision must be caused by something else - maybe also more of a marketing thing. The crypto haters caused so much damage, it's really sad.
@xigoi Are you actually trying to get malware into your computer? Don't install **random** shiny new things without maximum skepticism. Period. Just let some other fools "test" the minefield for you. Or do a proper inspection. Executing foreign code just because it had "GPT" in the name... and acting like there was no other option... yuck!
@dandi8 the license of Adobe Photoshop is not open-source because it specifically restricts reverse-engineering and modifications, and a lot of other things. The license of Mistral Nemo IS open-source, because it's Apache2.0, you are free to use it, study it, redistribute it, ... open-source doesn't say anything about giving you all the tools to re-create it, because that would mean they would need to give you the GPU time. "Open-source" simply means something else than what you think.