undefined | Better HN

0 pointsllm_trw1y ago0 comments

An llm isn't software any more than a matrix is.

What do you think an open source matrix should look like?

0 comments

A compiled executable is not any less software than the source code. But the point of open source code is not the ability to see the CPU instructions though, is it?

Its about reproducibility and modifiability. Compiled executables (and their licences) lack that. The same as these downloadable blobs.

llm_trwOP1y ago

You make the start of a good point, but miss most of it.

You can absolutely have open source machine code.

The issue is and always has been that you need to have access to the same level of abstraction as the people writing the source code. The GPL specifically bans transpilers as a way to get around this.

In ML there is _no_ level of abstraction other than the raw weights. Everything else is support machinery no different to an compiler, and os, or a physical computer to run the code on.

Linux isn't closed source because they don't ship a C compiler with their code. Why should llama models be any different?

fragmede1y ago

where did those weights come from?

1 more reply

stonogo1y ago

Is this question in good faith? The way generated code and data should be open sourced is by releasing the tools and configuration used to generate it. There's never been much confusion around this, to my knowledge.

I'm not even necessarily advocating that these things should be released, but the term "open source" has a pretty well-understood meaning that is being equivocated here.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse