magic_lobster_party

  • 0 Posts
  • 49 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 15th, 2024

help-circle










  • It wasn’t just this though; the tool itself lacks the intent, context, and limitations of what we’re doing. It doesn’t have other aspects of the project, influences, references, or personal experiences in the back of its mind, because it doesn’t have a mind.

    This describes the fundamental problem with AI. The chatbot will forever be like that new recruit to the team. Sure, they have the skills to make some contributions, but they lack the surrounding context to fully work autonomously. They need some guidance to get to the right path.

    The difference between the chatbot and the new recruit is that the chatbot won’t remember all the guidances it got. The chatbot won’t remember all the design decisions that were made. The chatbot won’t remember that time prod went down. The chatbot will forever be like the new recruit with no experience.






  • Ok I understand now why people are upset. There’s a disagreement with terminology.

    The source code for the model is open source. It’s defined in PyTorch. The source code for it is available with the MIT license. Anyone can download it and do whatever they want with it.

    The weights for the model are open, but it’s not open source, as it’s not source code (or an executable binary for that matter). No one is arguing that the model weights are open source, but there seem to be an argument against that the model is open source.

    And even if they provided the source code for the training script (and all its data), it’s unlikely anyone would reproduce the same model weights due to randomness involved. Training model weights is not like compiling an executable, because you’ll get different results every time.



  • If the installer is open source, then that part is open source. It’s maybe not as useful, because it relies on proprietary software to work. On the other hand, so does emulators like Dolphin.

    Windows is not open source just because it’s possible to change dll files. Minecraft is not open source just because it’s possible to modify its textures.

    Model weights isn’t the equivalent to a proprietary DLL or GameCube ROM. Anyone is free to modify and distribute the model weights however they like - and people are already doing it. Soon enough we will see variations of the model without the Chinese censor for example.



  • I think a more appropriate analogy is if you make an open source game. With the game you have made textures, because what is a game without textured surfaces? You include the binary jpeg images along with the source code.

    You’ve made the textures with photoshop, which is a closed source application. The textures also features elements of stock photos. You don’t provide the original stock photos.

    Anyone playing the game is free to replace the textures with their own. The game will have a different feel, but it’s still a playable game. Anyone is also free to modify the existing textures.

    Would you consider this game closed source?


OSZAR »