The model itself is not open source and I agree on that. Models don’t have source code however, just training data. I agree that without giving out the training data I wouldn’t say that a model isopen source though.
We mostly agree I was just irked with your semantics. Sorry of I was too pedantic.
it’s just a different paradigm. You could use text, you could use a visual programming language, or, in this new paradigm, you “program” the system using training data and hyperparameters (compiler flags)
I mean sure, but words have meaning and I’m gonna get hella confused if you suddenly decide to shift the meaning of a word a little bit without warning.
I agree with your interpretation, it’s just… Technically incorrect given the current interpretation of words 😅
they also call “outputs that fit the learned probability distribution, but that I personally don’t like/agree with” as “hallucinations”. They also call “showing your working” reasoning. The llm space has redefined a lot of words. I see no problem with defining words. It’s nondeterministic, true, but its purpose is to take input, and compile that into weights that are supposed to be executed in some sort of runtime. I don’t see myself as redefining the word. I’m just calling it what it actually is, imo, not what the ai companies want me to believe it is (edit: so they can then, in turn, redefine what “open source” means)