Comment on Oracle made a $300 billion bet on OpenAI. It's paying the price.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoUnless the dataset, weighting, and every aspect is open source, it’s not truly open source, as the OSI defines it.
Comment on Oracle made a $300 billion bet on OpenAI. It's paying the price.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoUnless the dataset, weighting, and every aspect is open source, it’s not truly open source, as the OSI defines it.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Bullshit, the dataset is massive, and a dataset may include bias. You would always want to use a dataset that fir your needs.
wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
no,
your changing the definition of open source software. which has been around a lot longer than AI has.
source code is what defines open source.
what deepseek has is open weights. they publish the results of their learning only. not the source that produced it.
Jrockwar@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
Still debatable, the weights are the code. That’s a bit like saying “X software is not open source because it has equations but it doesn’t include the proofs that they’re derived from”.
wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
what has been published by deep seek is the music, not the software that made the music.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
In the same way as an Excel spreadsheet containing a crosstab of analytics results is “the code.”
It’s processed input for a visualization/playback mechanism, not source code.
CosmoNova@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
And LLM is simply such a bad example for Open Source in general. They couldn‘t have chosen a worse example to make their point. That‘s what’s frustrates me.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
techwireasia.com/…/china-open-source-ai-models-gl…
I’ve read similar claims in other articles, I have no idea why they would call it open source if it’s not?
wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
can you show me the actual source code?
the human readable code, not the weights.