Office space meme:
"If y'all could stop calling an LLM "open source" just because they published the weights... that would be great."
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
845 points (94.7% liked)
memes
16768 readers
3829 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Or more realistically: a description of how you could source the data.
Correct. Llama isn't open source, either.
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?
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.
So i still don’t see your issue with deepseek, because just like an emulator, everything is open source, with the exception of the data. The end result is dependent on the ROM put in to it, you can always make your own ROM, if you had the tools, and the end result followed the expected format. And if the ROM was removed the emulator is still the emulator.
So if deep seek removed its data set, would you then consider deepseek open source?
If I distribute a set consisting of emulator and a Rom of a closed source game (without the sourcecode), then the full set is not open source.
Kind of, but that's like expecting a console without any firmware. The Weights are the important bit of an LLM distribution.
So like an emulator. Or at least the PS2 ones when you had to dump your bios from your machine (or snatch someone else’s).
But that’s my point! The data set is interchangeable. So Its not what makes the deepseek, THE deepseek LLM . But without the data set it would be functionally useless. And there would be no way possible to satisfy your requirement for data set openness. You said there is some line in the sand somewhere where you might be satisfied with some amount of the data, but your argument states that granularity must be absolute in order to justify calling it open source. You demand an impossible unnecessary standard that is not held to other open source projects.
Just wanted to thank you both for this discourse! As somebody who's interested in AI but totally ignorant to how the hell it works, I found this conversation very helpful! I would say you both have good points. Happy days to you both! 🙂
The differenge is that the dataset is baked into the weights of the model. Your emulation analogy simply doesn't have a leg to stand on. I don't think you know how neural networks work.
The standards are literally the basis of open source.
I made my level of understanding kinda open at the start. And you say it’s not, open source most say it is, and they explained why, and when i checked all their points were true, and o tried to understand as best i could. The bottom line is that the reason for the disagreement is you say the training data and the weights together are an inseparable part of the whole and if any part of that is not open then the project as a whole is not open. I don’t see how that tracks when the weights are open, and both it and the training data can be removed and switched to something else. But i have come to believe the response would just boil down to you can’t separate it. There really is no where else to go at this point.
You can read all the other comments which explained why it is not open source. You can't really retrain the model without petabytes of data. Even if you "train" stuff on your dataset: it's more like tweaking the model weights a bit, rather than building the model from scratch.
"Open source" is PR talk by Meta and deepseek.
The engine is open source, the model is not.
The enumqtor is open source, the games it can run are not.
I don't see how it's so hard to understand.
They are saying that the model that the engine is running is open source because they released the model. That's like saying that a game is open source because I released an emulator and the exscutable file. It's just not true.