I think the answer is in the name. The "source" has always been what you need to build the thing. In this context I think we can agree that the thing is the model. Based on that the model is no more open source than a binary program.
If you can't reproduce the model then it's not open-source
21–30 of 117 posts
Re: If you can't reproduce the model then it's not open-source
#22> if you can’t reproduce the model then it’s not truly open-source. Open-source means open source, it does not make reproducibility guarantees. You get the code and you can use the code. Pushed to the extreme this is like saying Chromium is not open-source because my 4GB laptop can't compile it. Getting training code for GPT-4 under MIT would be mostly useless, but it would still be open source.
> Pushed to the extreme this is like saying Chromium is not open-source because my 4GB laptop can't compile it.
Not really, an analog would be if Chromium shipped LLVM IR as its source but no one could get any version of LLVM to output the exact same IR no matter what configurations they tried, and thus any "home grown" Chromium was a little off.
Re: If you can't reproduce the model then it's not open-source
#23I would argue that while technically correct, it is not what most people really care. What they care about are the following: 1. Can I download it? 2. Can I run it on my hardware? 3. Can I modify it? 4. Can I share my modifications with others? If those questions are in the affirmative, then I think most people consider it open enough, and it is a huge step for freedom compared to the models such as OpenAI.
Some people want more than that, e.g. they want to fix their printer but the driver is closed source, so they start the GNU project and the broader free software movement, responsible for almost all software innovation for decades.
Re: If you can't reproduce the model then it's not open-source
#24I think the biggest issue is with publishing the datasets. Then people and companies would discover that it's full of their copyrighted content and sue. I wouldn't be surprised if they slurped in the whole Z-Library et Al into their models. Or Google their entire Google Books Dataset
Somewhat unrelated, but here is a thought experiment... If a human knows a song "by heart" (imperfectly), it is not considered copyright infringement. If a LLM knows a song as part of its training data, then it is copyright infringement. But what if you developed a model with no prepared training data and forced it to learn from it's own sensory inputs. Instead of shoveling it bits, you played it this particular song…
This depends, how many times does it need to hear the song to build up a reasonably consistent internal reproduction, and are you paying per stream or buying the input data as CD Singles - or just putting the AI in a room with the radio on and waiting for it to take in the playlist a few times ?
Re: If you can't reproduce the model then it's not open-source
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somewhat unrelated, but here is a thought experiment... If a human knows a song "by heart" (imperfectly), it is not considered copyright infringement. If a LLM knows a song as part of its training data, then it is copyright infringement. But what if you developed a model with no prepared training data and forced it to learn from it's own sensory inputs. Instead of shoveling it bits, you played it this particular song…
This depends, how many times does it need to hear the song to build up a reasonably consistent internal reproduction, and are you paying per stream or buying the input data as CD Singles - or just putting the AI in a room with the radio on and waiting for it to take in the playlist a few times ?
Let's assume it is in a room with a radio listening to music, and that the AI is "general purpose" meaning that it can also perform other functions. It is not the sole purpose of the AI to do this all day.
I see where you are coming from in trying to identify the source of the copyright. This would be important information if a human wanted to sue another human for re-producing copyright material.
However, does that apply here? Nobody hears a human humming a song and asks if they obtained that music legally. Should it be important to ask an AI that same question if the purpose of listening to the song is not to steal it?
Re: If you can't reproduce the model then it's not open-source
#26I think the biggest issue is with publishing the datasets. Then people and companies would discover that it's full of their copyrighted content and sue. I wouldn't be surprised if they slurped in the whole Z-Library et Al into their models. Or Google their entire Google Books Dataset
Somewhat unrelated, but here is a thought experiment... If a human knows a song "by heart" (imperfectly), it is not considered copyright infringement. If a LLM knows a song as part of its training data, then it is copyright infringement. But what if you developed a model with no prepared training data and forced it to learn from it's own sensory inputs. Instead of shoveling it bits, you played it this particular song…
[deleted]
Re: If you can't reproduce the model then it's not open-source
#27I think the biggest issue is with publishing the datasets. Then people and companies would discover that it's full of their copyrighted content and sue. I wouldn't be surprised if they slurped in the whole Z-Library et Al into their models. Or Google their entire Google Books Dataset
Somewhat unrelated, but here is a thought experiment... If a human knows a song "by heart" (imperfectly), it is not considered copyright infringement. If a LLM knows a song as part of its training data, then it is copyright infringement. But what if you developed a model with no prepared training data and forced it to learn from it's own sensory inputs. Instead of shoveling it bits, you played it this particular song…
If a person plays a song similarly enough, then it is copyright infringment! Mere knowledge is irrelevant, it is the producing of copies (and also a few related actions) which is prohibited by copyright.
Re: If you can't reproduce the model then it's not open-source
#28I think the biggest issue is with publishing the datasets. Then people and companies would discover that it's full of their copyrighted content and sue. I wouldn't be surprised if they slurped in the whole Z-Library et Al into their models. Or Google their entire Google Books Dataset
Somewhat unrelated, but here is a thought experiment... If a human knows a song "by heart" (imperfectly), it is not considered copyright infringement. If a LLM knows a song as part of its training data, then it is copyright infringement. But what if you developed a model with no prepared training data and forced it to learn from it's own sensory inputs. Instead of shoveling it bits, you played it this particular song…
> If a LLM knows a song as part of its training data, then it is copyright infringement.
No it isn't. You can feed whatever you want into your LLM, including copyrighted data. The issues arise when you start reproducing or distributing copyrighted content.
Re: If you can't reproduce the model then it's not open-source
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
This depends, how many times does it need to hear the song to build up a reasonably consistent internal reproduction, and are you paying per stream or buying the input data as CD Singles - or just putting the AI in a room with the radio on and waiting for it to take in the playlist a few times ?
Let's assume it is in a room with a radio listening to music, and that the AI is "general purpose" meaning that it can also perform other functions. It is not the sole purpose of the AI to do this all day. I see where you are coming from in trying to identify the source of the copyright. This would be important information if a human wanted to sue another human for re-producing copyright material. However, does that…
Not humming, but Don't we prevent singing songs sometimes? The birthday song was famously held up by ip law for some years right?
Re: If you can't reproduce the model then it's not open-source
#30> Imagine if Linux published only a binary without the codebase. Or published the codebase without the compiler used to make the binary. This is where we are today. This was such a helpful way to frame the problem! Something felt off about the "open source models" out there; this highlights the problem incredibly well.
The GPL describes the source as the "preferred form for modification".