Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view

redhat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 71 posts

Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view

#21

Post by [deleted] »

bberenberg wrote: post #3
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #2

Disappointing that red hat is basically validating open weights as open source, and excusing it by saying this: > The majority of improvements and enhancements to AI models now taking place in the community do not involve access to or manipulation of the original training data. Rather, they are the result of modifications to model weights or a process of fine tuning which can also serve to adjust model performance. W…

Do you believe that open source can exist on top of closed hardware? I ask because you can't produce the final result without having someone give you the firmware blob. To me, this seems like an analogue to building on top of open weight models.

[deleted]

Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view

#22

Post by nickandbro »

Congrats NeuralMagic team on being acquired! I don't know if you know this, but I worked with you on discord a few times. Your team's always willing to go above and beyond with pushing out popular models in specific quant formats compatible with vLLM. And one of the few huggingface orgs that my boss can actually trust. Well deserved!

Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view

#23

Post by [deleted] »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #2

Disappointing that red hat is basically validating open weights as open source, and excusing it by saying this: > The majority of improvements and enhancements to AI models now taking place in the community do not involve access to or manipulation of the original training data. Rather, they are the result of modifications to model weights or a process of fine tuning which can also serve to adjust model performance. W…

[deleted]

Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view

#24

Post by hedora »

globalnode wrote: post #19
ysofunny wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i mean... it's IBM so what did we really expect?

I was thinking of trying Fedora (currently using Debian) and this comment made me look up who owns red-hat. ibm now owns red-hat, and apparently vanguard owns a huge chunk of ibm. I wonder how much influence any of the sponsors have over what goes into the os and what direction it takes.

You probably missed the news that RedHat decided to systematically violate the GPL:

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis...

tl;dr: They no longer publish source packages except to paying customers. If the paying customers republish the source, then RedHat closes the account.

I'm surprised none of the upstream developers have sued them for violating the license. There's no way I'd trust an organization that was behaving so unethically with control over my machine's package manager.

Anyway, I've been pretty happy with Devuan (Debian without SystemD). I find it much more stable than Ubuntu, Arch, Debian, etc., and all the userspace stuff I care about works great.

Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view

#25

Post by echelon »

jmclnx wrote: post #7

No real information, just a marketing spiel.

> TL;DR - Red Hat views the minimum criteria for open source AI as open source-licensed model weights combined with open source software components.

That's not open source!

I'm going to call this "Wizard of Ozzing". You give away the spectacle of magic tricks, but none of the science and machinery to do it yourself. You're still hiding it all behind fake virtue signalling.

Open source in AI is open weights, open training scripts, open inference scripts, open training datasets, and associated helper utilities. Without the science lab, you cannot replicate the science.

Weights in a vacuum are not open. It's a trick.

Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view

#26

Post by tbrownaw »

echelon wrote: post #25
jmclnx wrote: post #7

No real information, just a marketing spiel.

> TL;DR - Red Hat views the minimum criteria for open source AI as open source-licensed model weights combined with open source software components. That's not open source! I'm going to call this "Wizard of Ozzing". You give away the spectacle of magic tricks, but none of the science and machinery to do it yourself. You're still hiding it all behind fake virtue signalling. Open source in AI is open weights, open trai…

You have the preferred form for making modifications, and the relevant permissions to now get in trouble for it.

If you actually go look at the open source or few software definitions, that's what they're about - being able to make modifications.

Just like an open source software project doesn't need a public record of the rationale for all architectural decisions in order to qualify.

Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view

#27

Post by TZubiri »

jmclnx wrote: post #7

No real information, just a marketing spiel.

Or you don't understand the matter being discussed.

The classical definition of open source (cited in this release as Stallman's GPL definition of the preferred way in which to modify code) kind of breaks for ML programs.

This is a good update on the definition of open source from a quite reputable and influential FOSS source.

Your presumption that this article isn't sufficiently pure because in addition to being a company that does Free Software, it needs to do so without doing anything that resembles an ad or in any way ensures profitability is pedantic. If we had it your way the only open source software we would have would be mom's basement projects with shoestring budgets.

Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view

#28

Post by globalnode »

hedora wrote: post #24
globalnode wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking of trying Fedora (currently using Debian) and this comment made me look up who owns red-hat. ibm now owns red-hat, and apparently vanguard owns a huge chunk of ibm. I wonder how much influence any of the sponsors have over what goes into the os and what direction it takes.

You probably missed the news that RedHat decided to systematically violate the GPL: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis... tl;dr: They no longer publish source packages except to paying customers. If the paying customers republish the source, then RedHat closes the account. I'm surprised none of the upstream developers have sued them for violating the license. There's no way I'd trust an orga…

Cheers, will check it out.

Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view

#29

Post by tbrownaw »

hedora wrote: post #24
globalnode wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking of trying Fedora (currently using Debian) and this comment made me look up who owns red-hat. ibm now owns red-hat, and apparently vanguard owns a huge chunk of ibm. I wonder how much influence any of the sponsors have over what goes into the os and what direction it takes.

You probably missed the news that RedHat decided to systematically violate the GPL: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis... tl;dr: They no longer publish source packages except to paying customers. If the paying customers republish the source, then RedHat closes the account. I'm surprised none of the upstream developers have sued them for violating the license. There's no way I'd trust an orga…

> I'm surprised none of the upstream developers have sued them for violating the license.

Sounds like that implies that they probably actually aren't.

Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view

#30

Post by TZubiri »

globalnode wrote: post #19
ysofunny wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i mean... it's IBM so what did we really expect?

I was thinking of trying Fedora (currently using Debian) and this comment made me look up who owns red-hat. ibm now owns red-hat, and apparently vanguard owns a huge chunk of ibm. I wonder how much influence any of the sponsors have over what goes into the os and what direction it takes.

The vanguard thing is a common misconception, I've worked for S&P and we did tracking of ownership.

Think of these huge funds as proxies. It's like someone with little finance trading saying most of the internet is owned by cloudflare or RIPE or ARIN.

Post reply on HN