I'm sick to death of these shameless dilutions (including the notion that open-weight is open-source; the OSI is totally captured at this point)
I would, contra the OSI, not consider the model to be open-source even if the weights were under an open-source license. But that is the minimum condition under which it could be considered open-weight.
According to who? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_weights:
> Publishing these values allows others to download and use the model, while permission to modify, fine-tune or redistribute it depends on its license.
Those restrictions are definitely not compatible with the definition of open-source/FOSS. I think you have a much stricter view of what open-weights means than the industry.
There was an attempt to create an analogue of the OSI's Open-Source Definition that acknowledged the problems of merely releasing weights as "open-source". That project seems to have largely failed or fizzled, and "open weight" has come to be used mostly as a way of acknowledging that only the weights have been released under open-source terms.
This model of Meta's fails even that dramatically weakened standard.
This is just a series of dilutions by which giant corporations are trying (and apparently succeeding here on "hacker" news) to trade on the cachet of commitments they don't actually hold.
"Open weights" is for the most part a term that is meaningless besides being technically able to run it on your own hardware.
I don't think we have a proper term for what you are reaching for, and proper open-source models (training, training-data, etc. being fully open) are scarce.
> I don't think we have a proper term for what you are reaching for, and proper open-source models (training, training-data, etc. being fully open) are scarce.
I think you're very much right that we don't have a "brand" with either the same kind of institutional backing as terms like "open-source" and "free software" or a wealth of examples to point to.
Although to be fair, Kimi contains an identical carve out.
You can see https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition
Specifically:
> A precondition to exercising these freedoms is to have access to the preferred form to make modifications to the system.
and
> The preferred form of making modifications to a machine-learning system must include all the elements below:
> Data Information: ...
> Code: ...
> Parameters: ...
Does this address your issues with the OSI definition?
They have no right to make new and limited definitions for what Open Source means in other areas like LLMs. They can write and publish a definition if they like, but whether the rest of the world accepts it is another matter.
As for the "open source license" issue, you need the four fundamental software freedoms with whatever is distributed, just like with conventional open-source software. The OSAID enumerates a formulation of each of all four, but this is the one that this release fails to meet:
> An Open Source AI is an AI system made available under terms and in a way that grant the freedoms to¹ [...] [u]se the system for any purpose and without having to ask for permission.
> 1: These freedoms are derived from the Free Software Definition (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html)
(The footnote is theirs, not mine.)
So the OSI agree with me that these weights cannot be considered, in their terms, "open-source weights". Our disagreement is that I think the training data itself should be considered a necessary part of a bona fide open-source ML model.
I think the answer to ethical concerns about releasing training data that involves data that carries privacy restrictions, like medical data, is that such models cannot be free/open-source. I think that's okay; it's okay to acknowledge that not every machine learning model in the world can be open-source. Eve the FSF, who are generally hardliners about using, let alone producing, non-free software, admit the ethical use of non-free models under just such circumstances. They just so so without blurring the distinction between free and non-free, which is the tack I wish the OSI had taken.
for those already selling tokens, they are already under agreements like this, Meta is not the first to do this, it's just part of the business already
Because they want to expand their business and make money?