[Groxx]

Especially since some of the arguments in the article seem to hinge on "just fix the training!", yeah, I think this is a completely fair call-out.

Open weights can sometimes get additional training, but you can't remove existing training, so there kinda isn't a fair claim to "just train it to be [nationality]". That would need "real" open source so you can train a realistically-equivalent model from the ground up.

[edflsafoiewq]

The big labs don't generally have the resources to remove stuff and re-run training again either. That's reserved for new models. Existing models are modified by operating on the weights even by the model creators, which exactly satisfies the GPL's definition of source as the "preferred form for making modifications".

[Groxx]

You're still describing the relative dregs we have now and saying "this is Open Source because it is the dominant form that exists". That's like saying "Windows is open source because it has documentation and everyone uses it. You can even modify registry values!"

I don't agree. At all. Existence and utility are not the defining characteristics of "open source" in roughly any reasonable definition. "Open weights" is descriptive and more than good enough, just use that.

[jononor]

Even in a fine tuning scenario, the preferred form for making modifications is the weights plus the training pipelines, including evaluation protocols, tooling, etc.