About as open source as a binary blob without the training data

[email protected]

This is exactly it, open source is not just the availability of the machine instructions, it's also the ability to recreate the machine instructions. Anything less is incomplete.

It strikes me as a variation on the "free as in beer versus free as in speech" line that gets thrown around a lot. These weights allow you to use the model for free and you are free to modify the existing weights but being unable to re-create the original means it falls short of being truly open source. It is free as in beer, but that's it.

magic_lobster_party

They published the source code needed run the model. It’s open source in the way that anyone can download the model, run it locally, and further build on it.

Training from scratch costs millions.

[email protected]

Open source isn't really applicable to LLM models IMO.

There is open weights (the model), and available training data, and other nuances.

They actually went a step further and provided a very thorough breakdown of the training process, which does mean others could similarly train models from scratch with their own training data. HuggingFace seems to be doing just that as well. https://huggingface.co/blog/open-r1

Pennomi

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.

[email protected]

And looking at mobile games like Tacticus, there are loads of people with millions to burn on hobbies

[email protected]

Source - it’s about open source, not access to the database

Pennomi

No, but I do call a CC licensed png file open source even if the author didn’t share the original layered Photoshop file.

Model weights are data, not code.

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

A software analogy:

Someone designs a compiler, makes it open source. Make an open runtime for it. 'Obtain' some source code with unclear license. Compiles it with the compiler and releases the compiled byte code that can run with the runtime on free OS. Do you call the program open source? Definitely it is more open than something that requires proprietary inside use only compiler and closed runtine and sometimes you can't access even the binary; it runs on their servers. It depends on perspective.

ps: the compiler takes ages and costs mils in hardware.

edit: typo

[email protected]

Thank you for taking the time to write this. Making the rests reproducable and possible to improve on is important.

[email protected]

Thank you for the explanation. I didn’t know about the ‘preferred format’ definition or how AI models are changed at all.

[email protected]

You'd be wrong. Open source has a commonly accepted definition and a CC licensed PNG does not fall under it. It's copyleft, yes, but not open source.

I do agree that model weights are data and can be given a license, including CC0. There might be some argument about how one can assign a license to weights derived from copyrighted works, but I won't get into that right now. I wouldn't call even the most liberally licensed model weights open-source though.

magic_lobster_party

I think a more appropriate analogy is if you make an open source game. With the game you have made textures, because what is a game without textured surfaces? You include the binary jpeg images along with the source code.

You’ve made the textures with photoshop, which is a closed source application. The textures also features elements of stock photos. You don’t provide the original stock photos.

Anyone playing the game is free to replace the textures with their own. The game will have a different feel, but it’s still a playable game. Anyone is also free to modify the existing textures.

Would you consider this game closed source?

[email protected]

Eh, it seems like it fits to me. We casually refer to all manner of data as "open source" even if we lack the ability to specifically recreate it. It might be technically more accurate to say "open data" but we usually don't, so I can't be too mad at these folks for also not.

There's huge deaths of USGS data that's shared as open data that I absolutely cannot ever replicate.

If we're specifically saying that open source means you can recreate the binaries, then data is fundamentally not able to be open source, since it distinctly lacks any form of executable content.

[email protected]

So, where's the source, then?

[email protected]

It's worth noting that OpenR1 have themselves said that DeepSeek didn't release any code for training the models, nor any of the crucial hyperparameters used. So even if you did have suitable training data, you wouldn't be able to replicate it without re-discovering what they did.

OSI specifically makes a carve-out that allows models to be considered "open source" under their open source AI definition without providing the training data, so when it comes to AI, open source is really about providing the code that kicks off training, checkpoints if used, and details about training data curation so that a comparable dataset can be compiled for replicating the results.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

You could train it yourself too.

How, without information on the dataset and the training code?

[email protected]

If we're specifically saying that open source means you can recreate the binaries, then data is fundamentally not able to be open source

lol, are you claiming data isn't reproducable? XD