• 712@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    2 days ago

    I think it’s important to note that these models are open-WEIGHT and not open-SOURCE. Open-source would mean we could explore the training data itself. Open-weight models are great, but please let’s not call them open-source.

    • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah, it’s like an open-source distro that won’t work without an accompanying opaque binary blob.

    • eicker@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Perfect shouldn’t become the enemy of better. Open Weight AI isn’t Open Source AI, but it’s a huge improvement over Closed AI where you get neither the weights nor the training pipeline.

      • TheMinister@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        But to put it another way, what would you say to stalling tactics on the climate? What we need is “perfect” and they are only offering us bottom line-friendly “better”?

        “X-1” doesn’t solve the equation “x-1(x/1000),” know what I mean?

    • Meron35@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Nemotron Ultra is a open source and already gives DeepSeek R1 performance (admittedly not that good anymore). NVIDIA has open sourced the entire training process, including raw datasets and synthetic data generation. The raw data is mostly curated web crawl data.