About as open source as a binary blob without the training data
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Yeah, let's all base our decisions and definitions on what the stock market dictates. What could possibly go wrong?
/s
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
communist developed, energy efficient AI.
lol
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
When your narcissism has reached the point of, ‘I know better than every hedge fund manager, and technical expert on the subject’, it’s time to get an evaluated for a personality disorder.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
What’s inaccurate about it?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I'm including Facebook's LLM in my critique. And I dislike the current hype on LLMs, no matter where they're developed.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Ok, then my definition givenwas too narrow, when I said "reproducable binaries". If data claims to be "open source", then it needs to supply information on how to reproduce it.
Open data has other criteria, I'm sure.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Hedge |und managers aren't in the business of knowing things about technology. And I'm not claiming that I know more than "every" technical expert.
The thing is: not "every" expert agrees with the claims of Sam Altman and company. You'll find that most who agree with him have a material incentive to do so (or are deranged lunatics babbling about Rocco's Basilisk)
I'm literally informed by experts on the field. And quits a bunch agree that the claims of OpenAI are bogus marketing hype and that we're currently at the cusp of a bursting AI bubble.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
China is a state-capitalist, bourgeois society. They're not a communist society.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
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.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I don’t think you know why any of those words mean. Just regurgitating propaganda.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
You seem to be implying you think you know better than the technical experts at these big hedge funds. Why not sell your expertise to them, and become rich?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
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.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
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.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
American magic bean companies like Beanco, The Boston Bean Company, and Nvidia
Lol
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
my definition givenwas too narrow
Yes, that's what I said when you opted to take the first half of a sentence out of context.
The common usage of open data is just that it's freely shareable.
Like I said in my initial comment, people frequently use "open source" to refer to it, but it's such a pervasive error that it hardly worth getting too caught up on and practically doesn't count as an error anymore.Some open data can't be reproduced by anyone who has access to the data.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I'm not into gambling and know that the house always wins.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I was specifically addressing the use of the phrase "open source". And the term "open data" doesn't apply either, since it's not a dataset that's distributed, but rather weights of an LLM with data baked into it. That's neither open source nor open data.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Just regurgitating propaganda.
No u.
Communism is defined by worker control of the means of production
No, that's socialism. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
Also, the workers in China aren't in control of the means of production. The bureaucrats and capitalists are.
That’s how they lifted 800 million people out of poverty
While I applaud the better living standards: I see no contradiction to capitalism. Marx himself wrote:
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
Simply participating in markets does not make a country capitalist
No, but state ownership of the means of production makes a country state capitalist.
Let's come back to your initial point: you accused me of dismissing an LLM, because it is "communist". Comrade, I'm an anarcho-communist. I dislike all the hypetrain riding, water gobbling sharlatans in the current so-called "AI" bubble: Altman, Pashaj (don't know how to write him), Zuckerberg and Musk. I like it if the market get disrupted, but I don't like it if the AI trend continues to wreak havoc on nature.
Btw: how is deepseek "energy efficient"?
And also: All that has squat to do with open source or not.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
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.