Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view
redhat.com
Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view
1–10 of 71 posts
Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view
#2Disappointing 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.
Well yes, because they have no access to anything more. With training source code and data they might do something different. If you don’t have all the things used to produce the final result, it’s not open source.
Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view
#3Disappointing 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.
Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view
#4> We believe that these concepts can have the same impact on artificial intelligence
Where the concept is the exploitation of thousands of volunteers while repackaging their work. (I know that RedHat sponsors some people, sometimes to the detriment of projects, but a lot of it is not sponsored, especially when RedHat established itself.)
Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view
#5Disappointing 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.
Turing completeness makes it a different problem.
Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view
#6Disappointing 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.
i have very little knowledge of any of this, but i had an impression that OpenAI was trained on commodity cloud hardware that's available for purchase/rent to anyone, including off-the-shelf GPUs from Nvidia and AMD? are those what you are referring to as "the firmware blob", or was there some other, more specialized and custom-built closed hardware involved?
Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view
#7No real information, just a marketing spiel.
Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view
#8Disappointing 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.
The math underpinning an AI model exists independent of the hardware it's realized on. I can train a model on one GPU and someone else can replicate my results with a different GPU running different drivers, down to small numerical differences that should hopefully not have major effects.
Data isn't fungible in the same way: I can't just replace one dataset with another for research where the data generation and curation is the primary novel contribution and expect to replicate the results.
There's also a larger accountability picture: just like scientific papers that don't publish data are inherently harder to check for statistical errors or outright fraud, there's a lot of uncomfortable trust required for open-weight closed-data models. How much contamination is there for the major AI benchmarks? How much copyrighted data was used? How can we be sure that the training process was conducted as the authors say, whether from malfeasance or simple mistakes?
Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view
#9No real information, just a marketing spiel.
i mean... it's IBM so what did we really expect?
Re: Open source AI: Red Hat's point-of-view
#10> We believe that these concepts can have the same impact on artificial intelligence Where the concept is the exploitation of thousands of volunteers while repackaging their work. (I know that RedHat sponsors some people, sometimes to the detriment of projects, but a lot of it is not sponsored, especially when RedHat established itself.)
So, what, is HN against open source now?