• trevor
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Yes. That solution would be to not lie about it by calling something that isn’t open source “open source”.

        • trevor
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I mean, god bless 'em for stealing already-stolen data from scumfuck tech oligarchs and causing a muti-billion dollar devaluation in the AI bubble. If people could just stop laundering the term “open source”, that’d be great.

          • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            I don’t really think they are stealing, because I don’t believe publicly available information can be property. The algorithm is open source so it is a correct labelling

            • trevor
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              24 hours ago

              My use of the word “stealing” is not a condemnation, so substitute it with “borrowing” or “using” if you want. It was already stolen by other tech oligarchs.

              You can call the algo open source if the code is available under an OSS license. But the larger project still uses proprietary training data, and therefor the whole model, which requires proprietary training data to function is not open source.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Plenty of debate on what classifies as an open source model last I checked, but I wasn’t expecting honesty from you there anyways.

        • trevor
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          You won’t see me on the side of the “debate” that launders language in defense of the owning class ¯_(ツ)_/¯