Office space meme:
“If y’all could stop calling an LLM “open source” just because they published the weights… that would be great.”
Even worse is calling a proprietary, absolutely closed source, closed data and closed weight company “OpeanAI”
I like how when America does it we call it AI, and when China does it it’s just an LLM!
I’m including Facebook’s LLM in my critique. And I dislike the current hype on LLMs, no matter where they’re developed.
And LLMs are not “AI”. I’ve called them “so-called ‘AIs’” waaay before.
Yeah, this shit drives me crazy. Putting aside the fact that it all runs off stolen data from regular people who are being exploited, most of this “AI” shit is basically just freeware if anything, it’s about as “open source” as Winamp was back in the day.
The training data would be incredible big. And it would contain copyright protected material (which is completely okay in my opinion, but might invoce criticism). Hell, it might even be illegal to publish the training data with the copyright protected material.
They published the weights AND their training methods which is about as open as it gets.
They could disclose how they sourced the training data, what the training data is and how you could source it. Also, did they publish their hyperparameters?
They could jpst not call it Open Source, if you can’t open source it.
For neural nets the method matters more. Data would be useful, but at the amount these things get trained on the specific data matters little.
They can be trained on anything, and a diverse enough data set would end up making it function more or less the same as a different but equally diverse set. Assuming publicly available data is in the set, there would also be overlap.
The training data is also by necessity going to be orders of magnitude larger than the model itself. Sharing becomes impractical at a certain point before you even factor in other issues.
That… Doesn’t align with years of research. Data is king. As someone who specifically studies long tail distributions and few-shot learning (before succumbing to long COVID, sorry if my response is a bit scattered), throwing more data at a problem always improves it more than the method. And the method can be simplified only with more data. Outside of some neat tricks that modern deep learning has decided is hogwash and “classical” at least, but most of those don’t scale enough for what is being looked at.
Also, datasets inherently impose bias upon networks, and it’s easier to create adversarial examples that fool two networks trained on the same data than the same network twice freshly trained on different data.
Sharing metadata and acquisition methods is important and should be the gold standard. Sharing network methods is also important, but that’s kind of the silver standard just because most modern state of the art models differ so minutely from each other in performance nowadays.
Open source as a term should require both. This was the standard in the academic community before tech bros started running their mouths, and should be the standard once they leave us alone.
Hell, for all we know it could be full of classified data. I guess depending on what country you’re in it definitely is full of classified data…
Judging by OP’s salt in the comments, I’m guessing they might be an Nvidia investor. My condolences.
Nah, just a 21st century Luddite.
There are lots of problems with the new lingo. We need to come up with new words.
How about “Open Weightings”?
That’s fat shaming
That sounds like a segment on “My 600lb Life”
Weights available?
Arguably they are a new type of software, which is why the old categories do not align perfectly. Instead of arguing over how to best gatekeep the old name, we need a new classification system.
… Statistical engines are older than personal computers, with the first statistical package developed in 1957. And AI professionals would have called them trained models. The interpreter is code, the weights are not. We have had terms for these things for ages.
There were e|forts. Facebook didn’t like those. (Since their models wouldn’t be considered open source anymore)
I don’t care what Facebook likes or doesn’t like. The OSS community is us.
Is it even really software, or just a datablob with a dedicated interpreter?
Isn’t all software just data plus algorithms?
Well, yes, but usually it’s the code that’s the main deal, and the part that’s open, and the data is what you do with it. Here, the training weights seem to be “it”, so to speak.
Open weights
Yes please, let’s use this term, and reserve Open Source for it’s existing definition in the academic ML setting of weights, methods, and training data. These models don’t readily fit into existing terminology for structure and logistic reasons, but when someone says “it’s got open weights” I know exactly what set of licenses and implications it may have without further explanation.
i mean, if it’s not directly factually inaccurate, than, it is open source. It’s just that the specific block of data they used and operate on isn’t published or released, which is pretty common even among open source projects.
AI just happens to be in a fairly unique spot where that thing is actually like, pretty important. Though nothing stops other groups from creating an openly accessible one through something like distributed computing. Which seems to be a fancy new kid on the block moment for AI right now.
The running engine and the training engine are open source. The service that uses the model trained with the open source engine and runs it with the open source runner is not, because a biiiig big part of what makes AI work is the trained model, and a big part of the source of a trained model is training data.
When they say open source, 99.99% of the people will understand that everything is verifiable, and it just is not. This is misleading.
As others have stated, a big part of open source development is providing everything so that other users can get the exact same results. This has always been the case in open source ML development, people do provide links to their training data for reproducibility. This has been the case with most of the papers on natural language processing (overarching branch of llm) I have read in the past. Both code and training data are provided.
Example in the computer vision world, darknet and tool: https://github.com/AlexeyAB/darknet
This is the repo with the code to train and run the darknet models, and then they provide pretrained models, called yolo. They also provide links to the original dataset where the tool models were trained. THIS is open source.
But it is factually inaccurate. We don’t call binaries open-source, we don’t even call visible-source open-source. An AI model is an artifact just like a binary is.
An “open-source” project that doesn’t publish everything needed to rebuild isn’t open-source.
Is it common? Many fields have standard, open datasets. That’s not the case here, and this data is the most important part of training an LLM.
That “specific block of data” is more than 99% of such a project. Hardly insignificant.
Seems kinda reductive about what makes it different from most other LLM’s. Reading the comments i see the issue is that the training data is why some consider it not open source, but isn’t that just trained from the other AI? It’s not why this AI is special. And the way it uses that data, afaik, is open and editable, and the license to use it is open. Whats the issue here?
Seems kinda reductive about what makes it different from most other LLM’s
The other LLMs aren’t open source, either.
isn’t that just trained from the other AI?
Most certainly not. If it were, it wouldn’t output coherent text, since LLM output degenerates if you human-centipede its’ outputs.
And the way it uses that data, afaik, is open and editable, and the license to use it is open.
From that standpoint, every binary blob should be considered “open source”, since the machine instructions are readable in RAM.
-
Well that’s the argument.
-
Ai condensing ai is what is talked about here, from my understanding deepseek is two parts and they start with known datasets in use, and the two parts bounce ideas against each other and calculates fitness. So degrading recursive results is being directly tackled here. But training sets are tokenized gathered data. The gathering of data sets is a rights issue, but this is not part of the conversation here.
-
It could be i don’t have a complete concept on what is open source, but from looking into it, all the boxes are checked. The data set is not what is different, it’s just data. Deepseek say its weights are available and open to be changed (https://api-docs.deepseek.com/news/news250120) but the processes that handle that data at unprecedented efficiency us what makes it special
The point of open source is access to reproducability the weights are the end products (like a binary blob), you need to supply a way on how the end product is created to be open source.
So its not how it tokenized the data you are looking for, it’s not how the weights are applied you want, and it’s not how it functions to structure the output you want because these are all open… it’s the entirety of the bulk unfiltered data you want. Of which deepseek was provided from other ai projects for initial training, can be changed to fit user needs, and doesnt touch on at all how this LLM is different from other LLM’s? This would be as i understand it… like saying that an open source game emulator can’t be open source because Nintendo games are encapsulated? I don’t consider the training data to be the LLM. I consider the system that manipulated that data to be the LLM. Is that where the difference in opinion is?
it’s the entirety of the bulk unfiltered data you want
Or more realistically: a description of how you could source the data.
doesnt touch on at all how this LLM is different from other LLM’s?
Correct. Llama isn’t open source, either.
like saying that an open source game emulator can’t be open source because Nintendo games are encapsulated
Not at all. It’s like claiming an emulator is open source, because it has a plugin system, but you need a closed source build dependency that the developer doesn’t disclose to the puplic.
Source build dependency… so you don’t have a problem with the LLM at all! You have a problem with the data collection process or the pre-training! So an emulator can’t be open source if the methodology on how the developers discovered how to read Nintendo ROM’s was not disclosed? Or which games were dissected in order to reverse engineer that info? I don’t consider that a prerequisite to say an emulator is open
So if i say… remove the data set from deepseek what remains would be considered open source by you?
So an emulator can’t be open source if the methodology on how the developers discovered how to read Nintendo ROM’s was discovered?
No. The emulator is open source if it supplies the way on hou to get the binary in the end. I don’t know how else to explain it to you: No LLM is open source.
A closer analogy would be only providing the binary output of the emulator build and calling it open source. If you can’t reproduce building the output from what they provide in what way is it reproducible? The model is the output, the training data and algorithm to build the model based on the training data are the input.
Edit: Say I have a Java project I want to open source. Normally (oversimplifying a bit) it goes .java source files used with a compiler to build intermediate bytecode in .class files, then there’s a just in time (JIT) compilation to create the binary code as it runs in the JVM. It’s not open source if I only share the class files, even if I can use them to recreate source files that can be recompiled into the same class files. Starting at an intermediate step of the process isn’t the source.
Would it? Not sure how that would be a better analogy. The argument is that it’s nearly all open… but it still does not count because the data set before it’s manipulated by the LLM (in my analogy the data set the emulator is using would be a Nintendo ROM) is not open. A data set that if provided would be so massive, it would render the point of tokenization pointless and be completely unusable by literally ANYONE without multiple data centers redlining for WEEKS. Under that standard of scrutiny not only could there never be an LLM that would qualify, but projects that are considered open source would not be. Thus making the distinction meaningless.
An emulator without a ROM mounted is still an emulator, even if not usable.
I don’t understand your objections. Even if the amount of data is rather big, it doesn’t change that this data is part of the source, and leaving it out makes the whole project non-open-source.
Under that standard of scrutiny not only could there never be an LLM that would qualify, but projects that are considered open source would not be. Thus making the distinction meaningless.
What? No? Open-source projects literally do meet this standard.
-
It’s just AI haters trying to find any way to disparage AI. They’re trying to be “holier than thou”.
The model weights are data, not code. It’s perfectly fine to call it open source even though you don’t have the means to reproduce the data from scratch. You are allowed to modify and distribute said modifications so it’s functionally free (as in freedom) anyway.
Let’s transfer your bullshirt take to the kernel, shall we?
The kernel is instructions, not code. It’s perfectly fine to call it open source even though you don’t have the code to reproduce the kernel from scratch. You are allowed to modify and distribute said modifications so it’s functionally free (as in freedom) anyway.
🤡
Edit: It’s more that so-called “AI” stakeholders want to launder it’s reputation with the “open source” label.
Right. You could train it yourself too. Though its scope would be limited based on capability. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Taking a class? Feed it your text book. Or other available sources, and it can help you on that subject. Just because it’s hard didn’t mean it’s not open
The weights aren’t the source, they’re the output. Modifying the weights is analogous to editing a compiled binary, and the training dataset is analogous to source code.
Are you talking source as in source code? Or are you talking about source as in the data the llm uses? Because the source code is available. The weights are not the output, they are a function. The LLM response is The output
but the weights can be changed, the input data can be changed. And if they are… it’s still deepseek and if you can change them they are not what makes deepseek; deepseek.
I use boot.dev it has an AI. But they changed the data set to only cover relevant topics, and changed its weights, and gave it tone instruction. And wile it plays a character, it’s still chatgpt.
I used the word “source” a couple times in that post… The first time was in a general sense, as an input to generate an output. The training data is the source, the model is the “function” (using the mathematics definition here, NOT the computer science definition!), and the weights are the output. The second use was “source code.”
Weights can be changed just like a compiled binary can be changed. Closed source software can be modified without having access to the source code.
The LLM is a machine that when simplified down takes two inputs. A data set, and weight variables. These two inputs are not the focus of the software, as long as the structure is valid, the machine will give an output. The input is not the machine, and the machines source code is open source. The machine IS what is revolutionary about this LLM. Its not being praised because its weights are fine tuned, it didn’t sink Nvidia’s stock price by 700 billion because it has extra special training data. Its special because of its optimizations, and its novel method of using two halves to bounce ideas back and forth and to value its answers. Its the methodology of its function. And that is given to you open to see its source code
I don’t know what, if any, CS background you have, but that is way off. The training dataset is used to generate the weights, or the trained model. In the context of building a trained LLM model, the input is the dataset and the output is the trained model, or weights.
It’s more appropriate to call deepseek “open-weight” rather than open-source.
What most people understand as deepseek is the app thauses their trained model, not the running or training engines.
This post mentions open source, not open source code, big distinction. The source of a trained model is part the training engine, and way bigger part the input data. We only have access to a fraction of that “source”. So the service isn’t open source.
Just to make clear, no LLM service is open source currently.
You could train it yourself too.
How, without information on the dataset and the training code?
It’s not hard. There’s lots of tutorials out there.
Tutorials won’t disclose the data used to train the model.
Yes. Wouldn’t be a tutorial if it did.
So the models aren’t opn source 🙄
Training code created by the community always pops up shortly after release. It has happened for every major model so far. Additionally you have never needed the original training dataset to continue training a model.
So, Ocarina of Time is considered open source now, since it’s been decompiled by the community, or what?
Community effort and the ability to build on top of stuff doesn’t make anything open source.
Also: initial training data is important.
So i am leaning as much as i can here, so bear with me. But it accepts tokenized data and structures it via a transformer as a json file or sun such. The weights are a binary file that’s separate and is used to, well, modify the tokenized data to generate outcomes. As long as you used a compatible tokenization structure, and weights structure, you could create a new training set. But that can be done with any LLM. You can’t pull the data from this just as you can’t make wheat from dissecting bread. But they provide the tools to set your own data, and the way the LLM handles that data is novel, due to being hamstrung by US sanctions. A “necessity is the mother of invention” and all that. Running comparable ai’s on inferior hardware and much smaller budget is what makes this one stand out, not the training data.
It’s still not open source. No matter how extendable the weights are.
I mean, this does not help me understand.
https://slrpnk.net/comment/13455788
Edit: this one is a more thorough explanation: https://lemmy.ml/comment/16365208
Another theory is that it’s the copyright industry at work. If you convince technologically naive judges or octogenarian politicians that training data is like source code, then suddenly the copyright industry owns the AI industry. Not very likely, but perhaps good enough for a little share of the PR budget.
Open sources will eventually surpass all closed-source softwares in some day, no matter how many billions of dollars are invested in them.
Just look at blender vs maya for example.
Would you accept a Smalltalk image as Open Source?
what a weird hill to die on
On the contrary. What they open sourced was just a small part of the project. What they did not open source is what makes the AI tick. Having less than one percent of a project open sourced does not make it an “Open Source” project.
You can do sneaky things with weights that are virtually undetectable.
Source - it’s about open source, not access to the database
So, where’s the source, then?
Its not open so it doesnt matter.
It’s constantly referred to as “open source”.
Yeah - but it isnt
Great, so we agree. ᕕ(ᐛ)ᕗ
Meta’s “open source AI” ad campaign is so frustrating.
