undefined | Better HN

0 pointspera1y ago0 comments

I wish Meta stopped using the "open source" misnomer for free of charge weights. In the US the FTC already uses the term Open-Weights, and it seems the industry is also adopting this term (e.g. Mistral).

Someone can correct me here but AFAIK we don't even know which datasets are used to train these models, so why should we even use "open" to describe Llama? This is more similar to a freeware than an open-source project.

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/202...

0 comments

benrutter1y ago

This is such a good point. The industry is really putting the term "open source" through the ringer at the moment but I don't see any justification for considering the final weight output a "source" anymore than releasing a compiled binary would be open source.

In fairness to Llama, the source code itself (though not the training data) is available to access, although not really under a license that many would consider open source.

zelphirkalt1y ago

Facebook is one of the great when it comes to twisting words and appropriating terms in ways that benefit Facebook.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

benrutter1y ago

In fairness to Llama, the source code itself (though not the training data) is available to access, although not really under a license that many would consider open source.

zelphirkalt1y ago

Facebook is one of the great when it comes to twisting words and appropriating terms in ways that benefit Facebook.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse