Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
do you have a $100 mil worth of compute to train your own version of this?

I don't understand what gripe people have with open weight models and wanting it to be purely open source. the training dataset is only going to be a copyrighted set of contents you don't want to touch with a 10 feet pole. let alone have a publicly traded company host it for you, even if they internally are training on it.

You don't get why people would like to be in control of a powerful new technology before they build their stuff arround it ?

Sure, there might be currently contraints, but I think it is quite possible training will get optimized over time or crowsourced training can be organized.

Without fully end-to-end open source models you are still at the mercy of the model provider to keep providing updates, you have no idea what garbage they trained the model on & can't fix that, not to mention might end up getting sued for using the open weigth model once all those "AI stole my data" lawsuits are finally decided.

> You don't get why people would like to be in control of a powerful new technology

You will not have that control. Even if everything were open source. This is because you don't have 100 million dollars of compute.

There, the difference for almost everyone is negligible.

> Without fully end-to-end open source models you are still at the mercy of the model provider to keep providing updates

No. Because you can post train it. And even if you could train the whole thing again, but with slight changes, once again, you aren't spending the hundred mil in compute to change it only a little bit.

Instead, you'll do post training like everyone else does.

It's just about as open source as OSX, which can be downloaded zero cost here: http://updates-http.cdn-apple.com/2019/cert/061-39476-201910...

I love that Apple made OSX open source.

we're calling it openweights now. what is a logical push to have a completely new paradigm be compared with traditional software binaries?
Check the phrase I quoted. Anyways, I guess OSX is open assembly?
Checked.

  The more open source software out there the better. And the more open weights or even over source AI stuff the better too right?
is it not open assembly?

open weight models are better than open-assembly binaries (as you put it) because models are grown like plants, you can shape the open-weight model in a direction you want by feeding it more data and compute (aka finetuning).

which is something that is impossible in a binary.

embrace the new paradigm and it's tradeoffs. without scoffing at semantics and criticising from an armchair.

I'd encourage you to start referring to it that way,then.
Are you trying to imply, without making any direct argument, that this is never a useful frame of reference?

In comparison to cloud services, having access to the assembly code can still be quite useful.

This is especially true in the modern era, where you can use AI to much more easily decompile the assemble and reconstruct the source code even.

"Open-assembly" code may be more useful than you might previously have thought, given the ease of recreating the source code or making changes with AI these days.