According to whom? Weights are a type of program, which are interpreted by the neural network runtime. Same as Java bytecode interpreted by the JVM runtime.
I think the point here is that by being explicit you avoid the need to have this argument.
AI weights are not open “source”
11–20 of 274 posts
Re: AI weights are not open “source”
#12If my own data is in the dataset even when I didn't give consent is it a collaborator dataset?
If you posted your data into a service where the TOS allows this use then yes.
Re: AI weights are not open “source”
#13I'm not sure OCV gets to decide any of this. Just like I don't think OSI trying to be the sole dictator of the term "Open Source" works out long term. My opinion is always received controversially about things like this, but terms evolve to meet the common usage by the people. If people are calling this "Open Source", and there are more people who want to call this "Open Source", than people who don't; unless you intend to legally bar them from using the term, with actual action, like a lawsuit or something then eventually this will will also be encompassed by the term "Open Source" as people know it like it or not.
Yes I know this term is currently defined explicitly by OSI, no I don't think language prescriptivism wins out regardless how hard they try with it, and since I haven't seen any of the hundreds of quasi Open Source, but not really, companies get dragged to court over usage of the term, this is all toothless complaining in my view.
As to their actual point, I might actually agree with them if it were only the weights being shared. In most cases the configuration is also shared which allows popular frameworks to instantiate the model and then execute it for either inference or further training making the release fully suitable for modification and rerelease. I don't need the exact implementation of FlashAttention they used if I can load the model into Huggingface and use theirs, or mine or whatever.
Edit: This obviously doesn't apply to the models who have restrictions placed on usage just in case people think I mean every instance of sharing a model. Those are obviously restricted use and I agree it muddies the term.
Re: AI weights are not open “source”
#14completely off topic, but funny: I misread "opencoreventures" as "opencorevultures"
Re: AI weights are not open “source”
#15Model weights are not source code, but data. Arguably because of how they are generated, they are not even copyrightable at all.
Re: AI weights are not open “source”
#16> The ethical license category applies to licenses that allow commercial use of the component but includes field of endeavor and/or behavioral use restrictions set by the licensor. I don’t love the name, “ethical license” sounds like a description of the license: this license is ethical. Really this sort of license imposes a particular ethical framework on the user. Not to throw shade, though. It is actually hard to…
"Opinionated" is how I think about it.
Re: AI weights are not open “source”
#17According to whom? Weights are a type of program, which are interpreted by the neural network runtime. Same as Java bytecode interpreted by the JVM runtime.
Weights are data, not a type of program. A computer program is a set of instructions that may be executed. Weights are values that may be loaded by a program, but are not a program in and of themselves.
It's a very difficult distinction to make.
Would you consider a Python program to be data rather than program just because it is text input to the python interpreter instead of machine code for the CPU?
Re: AI weights are not open “source”
#18According to whom? Weights are a type of program, which are interpreted by the neural network runtime. Same as Java bytecode interpreted by the JVM runtime.
Weights are data, not a type of program. A computer program is a set of instructions that may be executed. Weights are values that may be loaded by a program, but are not a program in and of themselves.
They’re not data though, they’re coefficients. They are the only thing that significantly differentiates one model from another.
If I told you the economy can be accurately modelled by
GDP(x) = Ax + B
But I don’t define A And B for you because it’s proprietary, you haven’t learned anything other than what you can glean from the structure of the model itself (it’s linear, there’s only a single input etc)
If most of these models are similarly structured, I’d say the weights are the program.
Re: AI weights are not open “source”
#19According to whom? Weights are a type of program, which are interpreted by the neural network runtime. Same as Java bytecode interpreted by the JVM runtime.
Weights are data, not a type of program. A computer program is a set of instructions that may be executed. Weights are values that may be loaded by a program, but are not a program in and of themselves.
No, declarative programs exist. They are not instructions.
There is no real line between code and data. This is an observation that runs all the way from Turing Machines in computability theory to the Von Neumann architecture and homoiconicity in Lisp.
What we call 'data' is just code that needs a cleverer interpreter.
Re: AI weights are not open “source”
#20What if you change the weights slightly? Kaboom, not breaking the copyright anymore.