139

Open Source Initiative tries to define Open Source AI (www.theregister.com)

submitted 4 months ago by ylai@lemmy.ml to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] sweng@programming.dev 5 points 4 months ago

It would depend on the format what is counted as source, and what isn't.

You can create a picture by hand, using no input data.

I challenge you to do the same for model weights. If you truly just sit down and type away numbers in a file, then yes, the model would have no further source. But that is not something that can be done in practice.

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 2 points 4 months ago

I challenge you to recreate the Mona Lisa.

My point is that these models are so complex that they're closer to art than anything reproduce

[-] sweng@programming.dev 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I don't see your point? What is the "source" for Mona Lisa I would use? For LLMs I could reproduce them given the original inputs.

Creating those inputs may be an art, but so could any piece of code. No one claims that code being elegant disqualifies it from being open source.

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 2 points 4 months ago

Are you sure that you can reproduce the model, given the same inputs? Reproducibility is a difficult property to achieve. I wouldn't think LLMs are reproduce.

[-] sweng@programming.dev 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

In theory, if you have the inputs, you have reproducible outputs, modulo perhaps some small deviations due to non-deterministic parallelism. But if those effects are large enough to make your model perform differently you already have big issues, no different than if a piece of software performs differently each time it is compiled.