There's a huge difference between software and AI models. We can debate why that happens but it's a fact. Companies are willing to release open weights but virtually no one is willing to create open source models. Shaming and well actuallying has achieved nothing so far.
And I'm not arguing that they should release open source models. There's no shame in releasing an open-inference model. But I think I'm fair in saying they should use an accurate term for what they do release.
There is nothing "source" about the "open source models" that companies typically release. The use of the term "open source" is deliberate marketing BS. If you want to argue there's a difference between software and a model, then don't use software terms that are already well-defined to refer to some property of the model.
Comments
Plenty of people publish actual open source software, the definition isn’t the problem, it’s the people who misuse it that are the problem.
There's a huge difference between software and AI models. We can debate why that happens but it's a fact. Companies are willing to release open weights but virtually no one is willing to create open source models. Shaming and well actuallying has achieved nothing so far.
And I'm not arguing that they should release open source models. There's no shame in releasing an open-inference model. But I think I'm fair in saying they should use an accurate term for what they do release.
There is nothing "source" about the "open source models" that companies typically release. The use of the term "open source" is deliberate marketing BS. If you want to argue there's a difference between software and a model, then don't use software terms that are already well-defined to refer to some property of the model.
https://opensource.org/osd
It’s a lot worse than marketing BS. It’s deliberate misdirection. Essentially a con.