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

31–40 of 71 posts

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

#31

Post by TZubiri »

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…

I understood that it meant source code in addition to weights, as in "publishing programming language code does not suffice as open source if you do not publish weights"

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

#32

Post by TZubiri »

stonogo wrote: post #12
dralley wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not exactly practical to hand out the training material given the sheer quantity of data we're talking about.

Yeah, no. We can move an arbitrary amount of data around the world at breakneck speed. Netflix does this for a living. It's not practical to hand out the training material because of the massive rampant copyright violations.

The training data is not necessarily kept. It's possible that data is consumed, incorporated into the weights and then discarded.

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

#33

Post by TZubiri »

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…

Red Hat is on your team and you are criticizing them for not doing enough, why not side with red hat against companies that don't even publish shit and still consider there models to be open?

The prevailing strategy for most companies is to publish some bullshit (like a cli or a model downloader) and call it open source, the bar is waaay low and we are just trying to raise it a couple of inches, it's not helpful to go for the throat and demand that it be raised to the sky!

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

#34

Post by nine_k »

tbrownaw wrote: post #26
echelon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Open source means that you can build from said source.

You can e.g. give away a closed-source game engine with an editor, where you can modify the prebuilt levels, and create your own, to your heart's content. But you can't build it from scratch in a controlled environment, and can't audit it. You also can't do modifications where the level editor interface is not sufficient, e.g. in the renderer. That's not open source, that's freeware.

For ML models, the training set is a crucial part of their source.

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

#36

Post by TZubiri »

rat87 wrote: post #20
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.

Vanguard "owns" a huge chunk of everything. Vanguard runs index funds, most peoples retirements are vanguard buying small shares of an index fund representing all the big companies on the stock exchange

Also they simultaneously hold the ownership rights as well as equivalent owenrship liabilities, so they own shit squat in net terms (excpet maybe their management fees).

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

#37

Post by TZubiri »

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.

"Do you believe that open source can exist on top of closed hardware? "

Yes, if Hardware is developed against standards shared by multiple manufacturers like amd64

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

#38

Post by dralley »

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…

This is wrong. Everything in RHEL is downstream from CentOS Stream - all of the sources are published there. The only differences are a handful of trademarks.

>If the paying customers republish the source, then RedHat closes the account.

Even if you ignore the above and think only about the official sources provided direct from the customer portal, it's still not a violation IMO.

Because that's not a restriction on how you can use the software you've been provided, it's a restriction on which services you can expect Red Hat to continue providing you, i.e. providing new software in the form of updates. The software you have already been provided continues functioning, it's not like the system gets bricked if your account is closed. GPL only specifies "what are you allowed you do with this piece of software you have been provided with", it doesn't guarantee a future relationship between the provider and receiver.

At worst it's a murky area, not a "systematic violation" as you claimed.

Also, like, it's a hypothetical thing the user agreement claims could be done, not something that necessarily is done. I don't think there has ever been an actual demonstrated instance of an account being closed because of that.

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

#39

Post by pabs3 »

dralley wrote: post #38
hedora wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is wrong. Everything in RHEL is downstream from CentOS Stream - all of the sources are published there. The only differences are a handful of trademarks. >If the paying customers republish the source, then RedHat closes the account. Even if you ignore the above and think only about the official sources provided direct from the customer portal, it's still not a violation IMO. Because that's not a restriction on h…

> Everything in RHEL is downstream from CentOS Stream - all of the sources are published there.

IIRC thats incorrect, RHEL gets some fixes before CentOS Stream.

Post reply on HN