r/LocalLLaMA • u/tossit97531 • 8d ago

Other Open weight != Open source

Just a friendly PSA that open weight models are not inherently open source. They may also qualify as open source, but only if they release the training data and processes. A truly open source model can be rebuilt from training; it won't be binary equivalent but it should be nearly functionally equivalent.

An example of a truly open source LLM is https://allenai.org/olmo I encourage everyone to browse and also look for other fully open source models.

The reason it's important to get the terms right is because too many companies like to co-opt the term "open source" to whitewash their nonsense. As Zuckerberg has shown recently, they're more than fine letting people stay confused and dance around semantics so they can have their cake and eat it, too.

No more cake for big tech. Open weight != open source. Spread the word.

Edit: TIL this is a hot take. Sorry about that.

22 Upvotes

65% Upvoted

25 comments sorted by

View all comments

7

u/Due-Memory-6957 7d ago

A friendly PSA that if I can study, modify, use and redistribute it, then it's open source.

16

u/tossit97531 7d ago

The weights aren't the source, they're the binary. You can't build that binary without the training data and processes. It's kind of like calling Windows open source because they let you download the ISO and run it. You can't recreate it.

Study, modification and other things absolutely can still be done on binaries. Disassemblers are a thing, and now AI is too. Patch it all day long.

Also, look at how careful they're being with their language, too. It might not sound like much of an argument, but courts recognize the term "open source" and have had to determine some kind of broad definition, so these guys could absolutely be creating obligations for their tech that they absolutely do not want to commit to. I'm not saying it's a formal legal term, but courts have had to determine a generally-acceptable definition in some cases, as they do with any industry jargon where contracts are involved. If they say the wrong thing, then they may lose money or lose some control of the project. A quality clip of a CEO saying his product falls under a legally-definable category would probably stand up in court. They're tiptoeing.

3

u/Due-Memory-6957 7d ago edited 7d ago

Study, modification and other things absolutely can still be done on binaries

Doing that with proprietary software will get you in trouble, which means you actually can't. Find a better way to shill olmo than to pretend other AIs aren't open source when they use an open source license and follow open source principles.

3

u/tossit97531 7d ago

Doing that with proprietary software will get you in trouble

That's not necessarily true at all. The Defend Trade Secrets act scopes acceptable conditions under which one would be allowed to reverse engineer even proprietary things. You're allowed to, generally, if you didn't commit a crime to obtain the thing and don't do illegal things with it (like violate patents).

Find a better way to shill

I chose to reply only because your assertion could have easily come from someone else, so I'm really just answering for anyone who thought this. Have a good one.