[astromaniak]

> it is not open source

It would be nice here if you give some examples of what you call open source model. Please ;) Because the impression is that these things do not exist, it's just a dream which does not deserve such a nice term..

[Hizonner]

As far as I know, none have been released. And it doesn't even really make sense, because, as I said, the models aren't copyrightable to begin with and therefore aren't licensable either.

However, plenty of open source software exists. The fact that open source models don't exist doesn't excuse attempts to falsely claim the prestige of the phrase "open source".

[kube-system]

> the models aren't copyrightable to begin with

What criteria for copyright protection are they missing?

[astromaniak]

> As far as I know, none have been released.

I can tell you a secret. What you call 'open source' models are impossible. Because massive randomness is a part of training process. They are not reproducible. Having everything you cannot even tell if the given model was trained on the given dataset. Copyright is a different thing.

And a bad news, what's coming is even worst. Those will be the whole things with self awareness and personal experience. They can be copied, but not reproduced. More over, it's hard or almost impossible to detect if something undeclared was planted in their 'minds'.

All together means 'open source' model in strict interpretation is a myth, great idea which happen to be not. Like Turing test.

> However, plenty of open source software exists.

Attempt to switch topic detected.

PS: as for that massive downvote, I even wasn't rude, don't care. This account will be abandoned soon regardless, like all before and after.

[jillesvangurp]

> models aren't copyrightable to begin with

You are wrong about that. It's a file with numbers. Which makes it a database or dataset and very much protected by copyright. That's why licenses are needed. For the phone book, things like open street maps, and indeed AI models.

> The fact that open source models don't exist

The fact that many people (myself included) routinely download and use models distributed under OSI approved licenses (Apache V2, MIT, etc.) makes that statement verifiably wrong. And yes, I do check the license of stuff that I use as I work with companies that care about such matters.

> As far as I know ...

Now you know better.

[simonw]

I'm personally comfortable calling a model "open source" if the license is compatible with the https://opensource.org/ definition.

The Llama models aren't. Some of the Mistral models are (the Apache 2 ones). Microsoft Phi-3 is - it's MIT.

[dagaci]

Open source must include source material so that another can reproduce that the model. I would expect that to be a minimum.