[behnamoh]

> Why is this surprising?

Because the promise of "open-source" (which this isn't; it's not even open-weight) is that you get something that proprietary models don't offer.

If I wanted censored models I'd just use Claude (heavily censored).

[denysvitali]

What the properietary models don't offer is... their weights. No one is forcing you to trust their training data / fine tuning, and if you want a truly open model you can always try Apertus (https://www.swiss-ai.org/apertus).

[croes]

I can open source any heavily censored software. Open source doesn’t mean uncensored.

[kouteiheika]

> Because the promise of "open-source" (which this isn't; it's not even open-weight) is that you get something that proprietary models don't offer. If I wanted censored models I'd just use Claude (heavily censored).

You're saying it's surprising that a proprietary model is censored because the promise of open-source is that you get something that proprietary models don't offer, but you yourself admit that this model is neither open-source nor even open-weight?