this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2025
18 points (95.0% liked)

Futurology

1943 readers
80 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Yeah, that's kind of AI companies' definition of open source... Other companies just have "open" in their name for historical reasons. The FSF doesn't really agree ( https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-is-working-on-freedom-in-machine-learning-applications ) and neither do I. It's "open weight". Or I'd need to see the datasets and training scripts as well.

[โ€“] rockerface@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago

Yeah, "open weight" seems a more appropriate label. It still seems better than a fully proprietary system, but calling it open source without clarification is misleading.