[choilive]

deepseek claims they are "open source" but they are not. They are open weight.

IMO a truly "open" AI model should have 3 components publicly available: the weights, the code, and the dataset.

Without all 3 the model is not reproducible. Could make the argument that the code and data are sufficient though.

[mirsadm]

No one will release the dataset because we all know it is gathered through dodgy means.

[notyourwork]

And likely massaged by the CCP.

[chgs]

Deep mind has one set of censorship, OpenAI another, anything musk does a third

It’s all “massaged”

[redcobra762]

I don’t think “Taiwan is China” is the same kind of massaging as not telling people how to make napalm…

What a weird thing to equate, though!

[ossobuco]

But Taiwan is China. Even the USA acknowledge that.

[redcobra762]

No, they’ve acknowledged the policy. The US has not “agreed” with the policy, which is different.

Also, as someone in the US I can very safely say that Taiwan is not China and have no concern for my safety.

[foxglacier]

It is though. Western AI tries to hide information like that with the justification of safety as well as things that might be offensive to current popular beliefs. Chinese AI presumably says Taiwan is China to help get more people on side for a possible future invasion. Propaganda does work - look at how many people think Donbas is still Ukraine and Israel is still Palestine.

[redcobra762]

The difference is that in China the info isn’t available without use of Western content, due to the totalitarian control over media, whereas in the West, information is pretty trivially available, even if the big companies keep it off of their platforms.

And sure ignorance is prevalent, but even GPT4 will tell me Donbas is still Ukraine, for instance. What a strange example to use, though!

[reedciccio]

That's what the Open Source AI Definition states https://opensource.org/ai

In any case, Deepseek like Llama fail much before hitting that new definition. Both have licenses containing restrictions on field of use and discrimination of users. Their license will never be approved as Open Source.

[mythz]

This nitpicking is pointless.

DeepSeek's gifts to the world of its open weights, public research and OSS code of its SOTA models are all any reasonable person should expect given no organization is going to release their dataset and open themselves up to criticism and legal exposure.

You shouldn't expect to any to see datasets behind any SOTA models until they're able to be synthetically generated from larger models. Models only trained on sanctioned "public" datasets are not going to perform as well which makes them a lot less interesting and practically useful.

Yes it would be great for their to be open models containing original datasets and a working pipeline to recreate models from scratch. But when few people would even have the resources to train the models and the huge training costs just result in worse performing models, it's only academically interesting to a few research labs.

Open model releases should be celebrated, not criticized with unreasonable nitpicking and expectations that serves no useful purpose other than discouraging future open releases. When the norm is for Open Models to include their datasets, we can start criticizing those that don't, but until then be gracious that they're contributing anything at all.

[jimjimwii]

Terminology exists for a reason. Doubly so for well-established terms of art that pertain to licensing and contract law.

They could have used "open wights" which would have conveyed the company's desired intent just as well as "open source", but without the ambiguity. They deliberately chose to misuse a well established term instead.

I applaud and thank deepseek for opening their weights, but i absolutely condemn them and others (e.g Facebook) for their deliberate and continued misuse of the term. I and others like me will continue to raise this point as long as we are active in this field, so expect to see this criticism for decades.

Hopefully one of these companies losses a lawsuit due to these shenanigans. Perhaps then they wouldn't misuse these terms so brazenly.

[mythz]

> i absolutely condemn them and others (e.g Facebook) for their deliberate and continued misuse of the term

This is the kind of inconsequential nitpicking diatribe I'm referring to. When has "open data" ever meant Open Source?

> They deliberately chose to misuse a well established term instead.

Their model weights as well as their repositories containing their technical papers and any source code are published under an OSS MIT license, which is the reason why initiatives like this looking to reproduce R1 are even possible.

But no, we have to waste space in every open model release complaining that they must be condemned for continuing to use the same label the rest of the industry uses to describe their open models which are released under an OSS License as Open Source - instead of using whatever preferred unused label you want them to use.

[jimjimwii]

We're talking past each other at this point. I believe both our positions have been adequately presented. Cheers.

[redcobra762]

“Gifts to the world”?

What a strange thing to say…

[blackeyeblitzar]

The only one I’ve see people talk about that shares all the components is OLMo (https://allenai.org/blog/olmo2)

[reedciccio]

There are more, like the work by Eleuther AI and LLM360.

[brianstrimp]

Only meaningful if code+data deterministically reproduce the weights.

At that point, the weights are just the cached output. Which has value since it's costly to produce from code+data.

[frabcus]

I don't think it needs to be deterministic - and if it isn't, having the data and code becomes even more important!

Compilers generally aren't deterministic (see the reproduceable build movement), yet we still use their output binaries.