[dismalaf]

But the weights can be modified. Also the real key is that you can host it yourself, fine tune and make money from it without restriction. That's what it's really about. No one (well, few) cares about recreating it because if they could they'd simply have made one from scratch themselves.

[diggan]

The same is true for FOSS in general. You're arguing that because no one (almost) builds their own X from scratch, there is therefore no value in having resources available for how to build your own X from scratch.

For someone who basically couldn't become a developer with FOSS, this way of thinking is so backwards, especially on Hacker News. I thought we were pro-FOSS in general, but somehow LLMs get a pass because "they're too complicated and no one would build one from scratch".

[dismalaf]

They get a pass because we know what these companies train on (proprietary or private data) but they can't admit it, but they're still giving away multi million dollar models for free.

Yes, it'd be nice if it was open and reproducible from start to finish. But let's not let perfect be the enemy of good.

[diggan]

> Yes, it'd be nice if it was open and reproducible from start to finish. But let's not let perfect be the enemy of good.

"Let's not let companies exploit well-known definitions for their own gain" is what I'm going for, regardless if we personally gain from it or not.

[hiq]

I still don't understand why they have to mix definitions to confuse developers, and we on top of that apparently have to give up on the true meaning of FOSS. What's so hard about using the term "open weights" or some new term instead of trying to reuse FOSS terms they don't abide to?