Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Its not open source.

We don't get the data or training code. The small runtime framework is open source but that's of little use as its largely fixed in implementation due to the weights. Yes we can fine tune but that is akin to modifying video games - we can do it but there's only so much you can do within reasonable effort and no one would call most video games 'open source'*.

Its freeware and Meta's strategy is much more akin to the strategy Microsoft used with Internet Explorer to capture the web browser market. No one was saying god bless Microsoft for trying to capture the browser market with I.E. Nothing wrong with Meta's strategy just don't call it open source.

*weights are data and so is the video/audio output of a video game. If we gave away that video game output for free we wouldn't call the video game open source as the myriad freeware games essentially do.



I don't think these analogies work.

Meta provides open source code to modify the the weights (fine tune the model). In this context, fine-tuning the model is better converted to being able to modify the code of the game.


So do video game developers (provide source code to modify their games) the analogy absolutely works. I can list a huge amount of actually open source software that I can see the source code and data for which is very different from Llama etc.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: