For these open source experts, it's all about standards. For Meta, it's all about the money.
  • fuzzy_feeling@programming.devEnglish
    436·
    12 hours ago

    Meta’s Llama models also impose licensing restrictions on its users. For example, if you have an extremely successful AI program that uses Llama code, you’ll have to pay Meta to use it. That’s not open source. Period.

    open source != no license restrictions

    According to Meta, “Existing open source definitions for software do not encompass the complexities of today’s rapidly advancing AI models. We are committed to keep working with the industry on new definitions to serve everyone safely and responsibly within the AI community.”

    i think, he’s got a point, tho

    is ai open source, when the trainig data isn’t?
    as i understand, right now: yes, it’s enough, that the code is open source. and i think that’s a big problem

    i’m not deep into ai, so correct me if i’m wrong.

    • GoodEye8@lemm.eeEnglish
      21·
      2 hours ago

      I understand the same way and I think there’s a lot of gray area which makes it hard to just say “the data also needs to be open source for the code to be open source”. What would that mean for postgreSQL? Does it magically turn closed source if I don’t share what’s in my db? What would it mean to every open source software that stores and uses that stored data?

      I’m not saying the AI models shouldn’t be open source, I’m saying reigning in the models needs to be done very carefully because it’s very easy to overreach and open up a whole other can of worms.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      83·
      8 hours ago

      I don’t think any of our classical open licenses from the 80s and 90s were ever created with AI in mind. They are inadequate. An update or new one is needed.

      Stallman, spit out the toe cheese and get to work.