[jazzyjackson]

No sign of what source material it was trained on though right? So open weight rather than reproducible from source.

I remember there's a project "Open R1" that last I checked was working on gathering their own list of training material, looks active but not sure how far along they've gotten:

https://github.com/huggingface/open-r1

[pradn]

Isn't it basically not possible for the input data set list to be listed? It's an open secret all these labs are using immense amounts of copyrighted material.

There's a few efforts at full open data / open weight / open code models, but none of them have gotten to leading-edge performance.

[ratamacue]

My brain was largely trained using immense amounts of copyrighted material as well. Some of it I can even regurgitate almost exactly. I could list the names of many of the copyrighted works I have read/watched/listened to. I suppose my brain isn't open source, although I don't think it would currently be illegal to take a snapshot of my brain and publish it if the technology existed and open-source that. Granted, this would only be "reproducible" from source if you define the "source" as "my brain" rather than all of the material I consumed to make that snapshot.

[overfeed]

> Some of it I can even regurgitate almost exactly

If you (or any human) violate copyright law, legal redress can be sought. The amount of damage you can do is limited because there's only one of you vs the marginal cost of duplicating AI instances.

There are many other differences between humans and AI in terms of capabilities and motivations to f the legal persons making decisions.

[ljosifov]

You may be right about the damage (will not dispute it even if I personally doubt it) - but what about the amount of good that it can do too? When deciding "what is to be done now" under uncertainty, we typically look at both sides of the ledger, the upsides in addition to the downsides.

Assume for a moment, that the current AI is teaching us that compute transforming data → information → knowledge → intelligence → agency → ... → AGI → ASI, is all there is to Intelligence-on-Tap? And imagine an AI path opens to AGI now and ASI later, where previously we didn't see any. Seems a bad deal to me, to frustrate, slow down, or even forego the 2050-s Intelligence Revolution that may multiply total human wealth by a factor of 10 to 20 in value, the way the Industrial Revolution did in the 1800-s. And we are to forego this, for what - so that we provide UBI to Disney shareholders? Every one of us is richer, better off now, than any king of old. Not too long ago, even the most powerful person in the lands could not prevent their 17 miscarriages/stillbirths/child_deaths failing to produce an heir to ascend the throne (a top priority that was, for sure for a king+queen). So in our imagined utopia, even the Disney shareholders are better off than they would be otherwise.

[overfeed]

> Seems a bad deal to me, to frustrate, slow down, or even forego the 2050-s Intelligence Revolution that may multiply total human wealth by a factor of 10 to 20 in value...

Why do you assume the emergence of a super intelligence would result in human wealth increasing instead of decreasing? Looking at how humans with superior technology used it to exploit fellow humans throughout history should give you pause. Humans don't care about the aggregate "dog wealth" - let alone that of ants.

[ljosifov]

I'm assuming the Intelligence Revolution, multiplying Human Intelligence with machines, will have the same effect as the Industrial Revolution had, on multiplying human physical strength. That multiplied the GDP by a factor of ~20 times, hockey stick like, in a fairy short time, a century or two.

[CamperBob2]

The amount of damage you can do is limited because there's only one of you vs the marginal cost of duplicating AI instances

But enough about whether it should be legal to own a Xerox machine. It's what you do with the machine that matters.

[overfeed]

> It's what you do with the machine that matters.

The capabilities of a machine matter a lot under law. See current US gun legislation[1], or laws banning export of dual-use technology for examples of laws that have inherent capabilities - not just the use of the thing- as core considerations.

1. It's illegal to possess a new, automatic weapon with some grandfathering prior to 1986

[ben_w]

While true, computers in general alreay had the ability to perfectly replicate data, hence blank media tax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

I think the reason for all the current confusion is that we previously had two very distince groups of "mind" and "mindless"*, and that led to a lot of freedom for everyone to learn a completly different separation hyperplane between the categories, and AI is now far enough into the middle that for some of us it's on one side and for others of us it's on the other.

* and various other pairs that are no longer synonyms but they used to be; so also "person" vs. "thing", though currently only very few actually think of AI as person-like

[CamperBob2]

Yes, but gun control and dual-use export regulations are both stupid. We need fewer tool-blaming laws, not more.

(Standing by for the inevitable even-goofier analogy comparing AI with privately-owned nuclear arsenals...)

[ljosifov]

:-) I like the symmetry of this. If I want to keep my creations outside the hands of others, I can keep them private. I don’t have to publish these words or broadcast them to the world. I could write this on my laptop, save it in a file, and keep it to myself. Fine.

However, once these words are broadcast—once they’re read, and the ideas expressed here enter someone else’s mind—I believe it’s only fair that the person on the receiving end has the right to use, replicate, or create something from them. After all, they lent me their brain—ideas that originated in my mind now live in theirs.

This uses up their mental "meat space," their blood sugar, and their oxygen—resources they provide. So, they have rights too: the right to do as they please with those ideas, including creating any and all data derived from them. Denying them that right feels churlish, as if it isn’t the most natural thing in the world.

(Before people jump on me:- Yes, creators need to be compensated—they deserve to make a living from their work. But this doesn’t extend to their grandchildren. Copyright laws should incentivize creation, not provide luxury for the descendants of the original creator a century later.)

[MrSkelter]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright.

Copyright isn’t violated when someone consumes a copyrighted work.

Copyright is violated when a copyrighted work is used by someone who isn’t the author to generate profit without prior permission.

You can read a copyrighted book and remember it. You cannot copy it and sell copies. If you want to excerpt it you must give credit and there are limits to what’s considered “fair use”.

[3abiton]

The only way this would work is with "leaks". But even then as we saw with everything on the internet, it just added another guardrail on content. Now I can't watch youtube videos without logging in, and nearly every website I need to solve some weird ash captchas. It's becoming easier to interact with this chatbots rather than search for a solution online. And I wonder with Veo 4 copy cats, it might be even easier to prompt for a video rather than search for one.

[prmoustache]

That doesn't mean it isn't possible.

[bee_rider]

“Not possible” = “a business-destroying level of honesty”?

[rcxdude]

Even if training on the copyrighted material is OK, just providing a data dump of it almost certainly is not.

[alpaca128]

No need for a data dump, just list all URLs or whatever else of their training data sources. Afaik that's how the LAION training dataset was published.

[anonymoushn]

providing a large list of bitrotted URLs and titles of books which the user should OCR themselves before attempting to reproduce the model doesn't seem very useful.

[echoangle]

Aren't the datasets mostly shared in torrents? They probably won't bitrot for some time.

[tokioyoyo]

There is a "keep doing what you're doing, as we would want one of our companies to be on top of the AI race" signal from the governments. It could've been stopped, maybe, 5 years ago. But now we're way past it, so nobody cares about these sort of arguments.

[behnamoh]

> No sign of what source material it was trained on though right?

out of curiosity, does anyone do anything "useful" with that knowledge? it's not like people can just randomly train models..

[marci]

When you're trully open source, you can make ethings like this:

Today we introduce OLMoTrace, a one-of-a-kind feature in the Ai2 Playground that lets you trace the outputs of language models back to their full, multi-trillion-token training data in real time. OLMoTrace is a manifestation of Ai2’s commitment to an open ecosystem – open models, open data, and beyond.

https://allenai.org/blog/olmotrace

[kreijstal]

you can do these same, except you would need to be a pirate website. It would even be better. except illegal. but it would be better.

[marci]

That is why the others can't provide stuff like this. RAG/Hallucination check. I just wish Allen.AI models had bigger context, 4k is too small nowadays.

[ToValueFunfetti]

Would be useful for answering "is this novel or was it in the training data", but that's not typically what the point of open source is

[anonymoushn]

If labs provided the corpus and source code for training their tokenizers, it would be a lot easier to produce results about tokenizers. As it is, they provide neither, so it is impossible to compare different algorithms running on the same data if you also want to include the vocabs that are commonly used.

[m00x]

Many are speculating it was trained by o1/o3 for some of the initial reasoning.

[fulafel]

Are there any widely used models that publish this? If not, then no I guess.

[DANmode]

Depending on how you use "randomly", they absolutely can..?

[chrsw]

Based on commit history Open R1 still active and they're still making progress. Long may it continue, it's an ambitious project.

[therealpygon]

This was simply a mad scramble to prove/disprove the claims OpenAI was peddling that the model wasn’t actually performing as well as advertised and that they were lying about the training/compute resources. Open-R1 has since applied the training to a similar 7B model and got similar results. At the end of the day, no one really cares what the data was that it was trained on and most AI providers don’t always share this either when releasing open source models, and certainly not available for closed source models.

[make3]

I don't think people make the distinction like that. The open source vs non open source distinction boils down to, usually, can you use it for commercial use.

what you're saying is just that it's non reproducible, which is a completely valid but separate issue

[alpaca128]

There's already established terms and licenses for non-commercial use. Like "open weights".

Open source has the word "source" in it for a reason, and those models ain't open source and have nothing to do with it.

[ben_w]

Took me until this thread to remember that in the 90s we had "freeware".

[piperswe]

But where's the source? I just see a binary blob, what makes it open source?

[jacob019]

The weights are the source. It isn't as though something was compiled into weights. They're trained directly. But I know what you mean, it would be more open to have the training pipeline and souce dataset available.

[timschmidt]

The weights seem much more like a binary to me, the training pipeline the compiler, and the training dataset the source.

[jumski]

Come here to write this - perfect analogy!

[reedciccio]

It's very imperfect analogy though these things can't be rebuilt "from scratch" like a program, the training process doesn't seem to be replicable anyway. Nonetheless, full data disclosure is necessary, according to the result of the years-long consultation led by the Open Source Initiative https://opensource.org/ai

[otabdeveloper4]

You can fine-tune their weights and release your own take.

E.g. see all the specialized third-party models out there based on Qwen.

"Open-source" is the wrong word here, what they mean is "you can modify and redistribute these weights".

[yetihehe]

You can also reverse engineer and modify closed source programs (see mods for games). Weights are like compiled version of source data.

[otabdeveloper4]

Finetuning isn't reverse engineering. Finetuning is a standard supported workflow for these models.

Also, the "redistribute" part is key here.

[yetihehe]

> Finetuning isn't reverse engineering

Fully agree, it isn't. Reverse engineering isn't necessary for modifying compiled program behaviour, so comparing it to finetuning is not applicable. Finetuning applied to program domain would be more like adding plugins or patching in some compiled routines. Reverse-engineering applied to models would be like extracting source documents from weights.

> Finetuning is a standard supported workflow for these models.

Yes, so is adding mods for some games, just put your files in a designated folder and game automatically picks it up and does required modifications.

> Also, the "redistribute" part is key here.

It is not. Redistributability and being open source is orthogonal. You can have a source for a program and not be able to redistribute source or program, or you can redistribute a compiled program, but not have it's source (freeware).

[macrolime]

Not legally. That's the difference.

[timschmidt]

Sure you can. It's often legally protected activity. You're just limited to distributing your modifications without the original work.

[microtonal]

There is work to try to reproduce (the original) R1: https://huggingface.co/open-r1

[1una]

I won't call it "binary blob". Safetensors is just a simple format for storing tensors safely: https://huggingface.co/docs/safetensors/index