[SquareWheel]

This is a pretty banal comment at this point. Open source is the term used in the LLM community. It's common and understood. Nobody is going to release petabytes of copyrighted training data, so the distinction between open source vs weights is a rather pointless one.

[stefan_]

First you steal all the code, then you want to redefine the term? Is it never enough with you AI guys? Where's the humility, where's the good?

[SquareWheel]

Sorry, too busy "stealing code" to answer right now.

[finarch]

lol

[8note]

its still a pointed one.

"open source" keeps being redefined by people with wealth and power to restrict our computing rights.

eventually its just gonna be "proprietary microsoft code that runs on microsoft servers, but you can see a portion of the results"

[SquareWheel]

"Open source" as a term has evolved due to its success. It wasn't some malicious attempt at redefining things from the technical elite. It was a natural shifting of language, as happens with all words, as it entered more common usage.

It's entirely reasonable that this colloquial understanding would be applied to new categories such as AI models. I'm sure it'll be applied to many other things that don't fit the OSD either. That's just language for you.

[khalic]

Tell this to the Allen project, Apertus Project, SmoLLM, etc, etc, etc