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

[email protected]

That "specific block of data" is more than 99% of such a project. Hardly insignificant.

Fushuan [he/him]

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.

Fushuan [he/him]

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.

Fushuan [he/him]

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.

acargitz

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.

Fushuan [he/him]

The source OP is referring to is the training data what they used to compute those weights. Meaning, petabytes of text. Without that we don't know which content theynused for training the model.

The running/training engines might be open source, the pretrained model isn't and claiming otherwise is wrong.

Nothing wrong with it being this way, most commercial models operate the same way obviously. Just don't claim that themselves is open source because a big part of it is that people can reproduce your training to verify that there's no fowl play in the input data. We literally can't. That's it.

[email protected]

It's not just the weights though is it? You can download the training data they used, and run your own instance of the model completely separate from their servers.

Fushuan [he/him]

The runner is open source, the model is not

The service uses both so calling their service open source gives a false impression to 99,99% of users that don't know better.

[email protected]

Did "they" publish the training data? And the hyperparameters?

[email protected]

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.

Fushuan [he/him]

The training data is NOT right there. If I can't reproduce the results with the given data, the model is NOT open source.

magic_lobster_party

The model is as far as I know open, even for commercial use. This is in stark contrast with Meta’s models, which have (or had?) a bespoke community license restricting commercial use.

Or is there anything that can’t be done with the DeepSeek model that I’m unaware of?

Fushuan [he/him]

The model is open, it's not open source!

How is it so hard to understand? The complete source of the model is not open. It's not a hard concept.

Sorry if I'm coming of as rude but I'm getting increasingly frustrated at having to explain a simple combination of two words that is pretty self explanatory.

[email protected]

There are lots of problems with the new lingo. We need to come up with new words.

How about “Open Weightings”?

[email protected]

Open sources will eventually surpass all closed-source softwares in some day, no matter how many billions of dollars are invested in them.

[email protected]

I mean, I downloaded it from the repo.

[email protected]

Just look at blender vs maya for example.

[email protected]

Never have I used open source software that has achieved that, or was even close to achieving it. Usually it is opinionated (you need to do it this way in this exact order, because that's how we coded it. No, you cannot do the same thing but select from the back), lacks features and breaks. Especially CAD - comparing Solidworks to FreeCAD for instance, where in FreeCAD any change to previous ops just breaks everything. Modelling software too - Blender compared to 3ds Max - can't do half the things.

[email protected]

The training data would be incredible big. And it would contain copyright protected material (which is completely okay in my opinion, but might invoice 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.

[email protected]

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.