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

Futurology

3530 readers
27 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Isn't every software binary open source then? Since you can open it in a hex editor and modify it

[–] Cochise@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 10 months ago

But tou don't have permission to do. And hacking a binary is much more difficult than specializing a model, for instance.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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.

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months 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.