[belval]

> 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.

[camgunz]

> 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.

[stcredzero]

Then what we need isn't open source. It's something else. Maybe called "Open Model?"

[belval]

Yes that would make sense. I'm in no way arguing that models can't be more open, just that overloading a commonly used expression such as "open-source" and then complaining that projects are not complying with your new definition of open-source just does not make sense to me.