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
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.
That’s just not true, the technology and content are entirely different things. Many game engines for instance are open source, but not the games made with them. This is open source.
You’re conflating game engines being open source with the games themselves being proprietary. Proprietary products can use (some) open source things, but it doesnt make the end product open source.
Given that LLMs literally need the training data to be worth anything, releasing the final model without training data is not open source.
They did not release the final model without the data, they released the framework and tech to create it. It is not conflating, it is the same even with open source games (not engines) that art can be licensed. The open source refers to… The source… As you might guess
They did not release the final model without the data
They literally did exactly that. Show me the training data. If it has been provided under an open source license, then I’ll revise my statement.
You literally cannot create a useful LLM without the training data. That is a part of the framework used to create the model, and they kept that proprietary. It is a part of the source. This is such an obvious point that I should not have to state it.
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
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.
That’s just not true, the technology and content are entirely different things. Many game engines for instance are open source, but not the games made with them. This is open source.
You’re conflating game engines being open source with the games themselves being proprietary. Proprietary products can use (some) open source things, but it doesnt make the end product open source.
Given that LLMs literally need the training data to be worth anything, releasing the final model without training data is not open source.
They did not release the final model without the data, they released the framework and tech to create it. It is not conflating, it is the same even with open source games (not engines) that art can be licensed. The open source refers to… The source… As you might guess
They literally did exactly that. Show me the training data. If it has been provided under an open source license, then I’ll revise my statement.
You literally cannot create a useful LLM without the training data. That is a part of the framework used to create the model, and they kept that proprietary. It is a part of the source. This is such an obvious point that I should not have to state it.