[ChanderG]

I think all this discussion around Open-source AI is a total distraction from the elephants in the room. Let's list what you need to run/play around with something like Llama:

1. Software: this is all Pytorch/HF, so completely open-source. This is total parity between what corporates have and what the public has.

2. Model weights: Meta and a few other orgs release open models - as opposed to OpenAI's closed models. So, ok, we have something to work with.

3. Data: to actually do anything useful you need tons of data. This is beyond the reach of the ordinary man, setting aside the legality issues.

4. Hardware: GPUs, which are extremely expensive. Not just that, even if you have the top dollars, you have to go stand in a queue and wait for O(months), since mega-corporates have gotten there before you.

For Inference, you need 1,2 and 4. For training (or fine-tuning), you need all of these. With newer and larger models like the latest Llama, 4 is truly beyond the reach of ordinary entities.

This is NOTHING like open-source, where a random guy can edit/recompile/deploy software on a commodity computer. Wrt LLMs, Data/Hardware are in the equation, the playing field is complete stacked. This thread has a bunch of people discussing nuances of 1 and 2, but this bike-shedding only hides the basic point: Control of LLMs are for mega-corps, not for individuals.

[fishermanbill]

But there is an insidiousness to Meta calling their software 'open source'. It feels as if they are riding on the coat tails of the term as if they are being altruistic, when in fact they are being no more altruistic than any large corporation that wants to capture market share via their financial muscle - which I suppose touches on your last point.