[worewood]

How often do people expect to compile open-source code and get _exactly_ the same binary as the distributed one? I've seen this kind of restriction only on decompilation projects e.g. the SM64 decompilation -- where they deliberately compare the hashes of original vs. compiled binaries, as a way to verify the decompilation is correct.

It's an unreasonable request with ordinary code, even more with ML where very few ones have access to the necessary hardware, and where in practice, it is not deterministic.

[bubaumba]

> How often do people expect to compile open-source code and get _exactly_ the same binary

_Always_, with the right options. And that's the key point. If distributed code is different it means it may be infected or altered in other way. In other words it cannot be trusted.

The same with models, if they are not reproducible or verifiable they cannot be trusted. Trust is the main feature of open source. Calling black box with attached data 'open source', even 'the first' is a bit of a stretch. It's not reproducible and not verifiable. And it's definitely not the first model with open data.

To be correct you should add 'untrusted' if you want to call this thing 'open source'. Like with Meta's models who knows what it holds.

PS: finally I'm negative, fanboys don't like it ;-)

[e12e]

I expect that if I compile your 3d renderer, and feed it the same scene file you did - I get the same image?

[TylerE]

Why would you expect that? 3D renderers are not generally deterministic. Many will incorporate, for instance, noise algorithms. They will frequently not produce byte-identical renders on the same hardware using the same binary.

[e12e]

Same recognizable image? Like if you look at the povray benchmark image on Linux and Windows?

For an llm that should (ideally) translate to similar answers?