21–30 of 119 posts
Even without the base system, power and every other expenses: 365d * 24h * $2.95 = $25842/a invoicable.
That doesn't add up within one year, that doesn't add up in three years and it is questionable that it brings in the money during the lifetime of the device?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The weights are the preferred form for modifying or integrating with other models. There is no obligation in open source to transitively open source all of the documentation / tools used to create the open source project. >a term that it seems nearly everyone has agreed is appropriate Models being considered open source even if the original training code / data is not released also is something almost everyone has ag…
> The weights are the preferred form for modifying or integrating with other models It's the 2nd time I hear this argument and I'm already fed up with it Is it the preferred way only because training is expensive? It's like saying binaries are the preferred way of modifying program because you can't afford to have a fast enough machine to compile it yourself. Most people don't have resources to compile their own brow…
No, it's the preferred way because that's literally how you train it. Contrary to popular misconceptions, you don't "compile" data into weights. You initialize a model (based on architecture, config, etc) and then you modify it via training. But crucially they (i.e. model creators) modify it the same way (technically speaking) as you would. That's what the license grants you. Nothing less, nothing more. The "how" as in knowhow has never been something covered by a license.
Open-weight is something dreamt up by people misunderstanding the basics of model creation and training, and having ideological biases against AI and/or LLMs. It is what it is, but you should know that you are technically wrong. A model released under an open source license (Apache, MIT, etc) is an open source model. Because the weights are the source of the models. Training is not "compilation". Training is the "how" as in knowhow to modify the model. Training deals with values. Source deals with everything, including values.
In the past, if someone would have released a piece of software (say a PID controller algo) w/ hardcoded values, no-one would bat an eye. LLMs are just that, with billions of hardcoded values. Nothing less nothing more.
How is the capex on 8 * MI354X even remotely justified at less than $10/h? Even without the base system, power and every other expenses: 365d * 24h * $2.95 = $25842/a invoicable. That doesn't add up within one year, that doesn't add up in three years and it is questionable that it brings in the money during the lifetime of the device?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The weights are the preferred form for modifying or integrating with other models. There is no obligation in open source to transitively open source all of the documentation / tools used to create the open source project. >a term that it seems nearly everyone has agreed is appropriate Models being considered open source even if the original training code / data is not released also is something almost everyone has ag…
> There is no obligation in open source to transitively open source all of the documentation / tools used to create the open source project. Open source means open source code. Open weight means a binary file dump, not unlike an exe file. There is nothing open source about it. Its like having a closed source text editor that censors certain words, and an open source text editor that censors certain words. The latter…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no obligation in open source to transitively open source all of the documentation / tools used to create the open source project. Open source means open source code. Open weight means a binary file dump, not unlike an exe file. There is nothing open source about it. Its like having a closed source text editor that censors certain words, and an open source text editor that censors certain words. The latter…
Per the OSD definition of source code, "the source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program." which means an argument could be made (as charcircuit is making) that the weights, being the preferred form to modify, are the source. I do prefer open weights as being more precise (like, is it even really software that has source code in the first place?) but I feel like at this point…
I wish they wouldn't call them "open source models". They aren't open source. They didn't publish the training data. They didn't publish the tools they used to train the model. They published the weights. It's an "open weight model", a term that it seems nearly everyone has agreed is appropriate. Why is this company not using it?
If they open sourced the training data and code but you had to train the network yourself, would that be open source?
How is the capex on 8 * MI354X even remotely justified at less than $10/h? Even without the base system, power and every other expenses: 365d * 24h * $2.95 = $25842/a invoicable. That doesn't add up within one year, that doesn't add up in three years and it is questionable that it brings in the money during the lifetime of the device?
How is the capex on 8 * MI354X even remotely justified at less than $10/h? Even without the base system, power and every other expenses: 365d * 24h * $2.95 = $25842/a invoicable. That doesn't add up within one year, that doesn't add up in three years and it is questionable that it brings in the money during the lifetime of the device?
Is anyone actually renting them out that cheap? The very cheapest on-demand price I see online is $14, and most providers are a lot higher
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, obviously.
Even though none of us could actually afford to train it?
Open source has benefits even if you can run yourself. You can read the code for understanding/insights. Other labs could replicate/build on it.