About as open source as a binary blob without the training data
Office space meme:
"If y'all could stop calling an LLM "open source" just because they published the weights... that would be great."
You're viewing a single thread.
I mean that's all a model is so.... Once again someone who doesn't understand anything about training or models is posting borderline misinformation about ai.
Shocker
A model is an artifact, not the source. We also don't call binaries "open-source", even though they are literally the code that's executed. Why should these phrases suddenly get turned upside down for AI models?
A model can be represented only by its weights in the same way that a codebase can be represented only by its binary.
Training data is a closer analogue of source code than weights.
Yet another so-called AI evangelist accusing others of not understanding computer science if they don't want to worship their machine god.
Praise the Omnisiah! ... I'll see myself out.
Do you think your comments here are implying an understanding of the tech?
It's not like you need specific knowledge of Transformer models and whatnot to counterargue LLM bandwagon simps. A basic knowledge of Machine Learning is fine.
And you believe you’re portraying that level of competence in these comments?
I at least do.
I mean if you both think this is overhyped nonsense, then by all means buy some Nvidia stock. If you know something the hedge fund teams don’t, why not sell your insider knowledge and become rich?
Or maybe you guys don’t understand it as well as you think. Could be either, I guess.
Because over-hyped nonsense is what the stock market craves... That's how this works. That's how all of this works.
Ok. How does that apply to DeepSeek?
Your anti-AI talking points are so embedded with anti-Big Tech arguments, that now you can’t pivot when it’s a publicly available, communist developed, energy efficient AI.
But also, you were talking about Nvidia in your comment I responded to, not Deepseek, so your rebuttal is non sequitur...
Actually no. As someone who prefers academic work, I very heavily prefer Deepseek to OpenAI. But neither are open. They have open weights and open source interpreters, but datasets need to be documented. If it's not reproducible, it's not open source. At least in my eyes. And without training data, or details on how to collect it, it isn't reproducible.
You're right. I don't like big tech. I want to do research without being accused of trying to destroy the world again.
And how is Deepseek over-hyped? It's an LLM. LLM's cannot reason, but they're very good at producing statistically likely language generation which can sound like its training data enough to gaslight, but not actually develop. They're great tools, but the application is wrong. Multi domain systems that use expert systems with LLM front ends to provide easy to interpret results is a much better way to do things, and Deepseek may help people creating expert systems (whether AI or not) make better front ends. This is in fact huge. But it's not the silver bullet tech bros and popsci mags think it is.
I didn't say it is all overhyped nonsense, my only point is that I agree with the opinion stated in the meme, and I don't think people who disagree really understand AI models or what "open source" means.
My career is AI. It is over hyped and what the tech bros say is nonsense. AI models are not source, they are artifacts, which can be used by other source to run inference, but they themselves are not source, and anyone who says they are don't know what code is.
Exactly
I'm glad we agree. I don't know how much mental energy we should devote to these things, but I guess I'm happy to see discussion on this platform. I kind of miss the days when I had to respond to people who watched I, Robot and think I'm trying to destroy humanity, instead of... I don't know what to call this except basically the same thing they did in the 60's before the first AI winter, but with more drastic consequences.
I have spent a very considerable amount of time tinkering with using ai models of all sorts.
Personally, I don't know shit. I learned about... Zero entropy loss functions (?) The other day. That was interesting. I don't know a lick of calculus and was able to grok what was going on thanks to a very excellent YouTube video. Anyway, I guess my point is that suddenly everyone is an expert.
I'm not. But I think it' neat.
Like. I've spent hundreds or possibly thousands of hours learning as much as I can about AI of all sorts (as a hobby) and I still don't know shit. I trained a gan once. On reddit porn. Terrible results. Great learning.
Its a cool state to be in cuz there's so much out there to learn about.
I'm not entirely sure what my point is here beyond the fact that most people I've seen grandstanding about this stuff online tend to get schooled by an actual expert.
I love it when that happens.
Yeah, let's all base our decisions and definitions on what the stock market dictates. What could possibly go wrong?
/s 🙄
When your narcissism has reached the point of, ‘I know better than every hedge fund manager and technical expert on the subject’, it’s time to get an evaluated for a personality disorder.
Hedge |und managers aren't in the business of knowing things about technology. And I'm not claiming that I know more than "every" technical expert.
The thing is: not "every" expert agrees with the claims of Sam Altman and company. You'll find that most who agree with him have a material incentive to do so (or are deranged lunatics babbling about Rocco's Basilisk)
I'm literally informed by experts on the field. And quits a bunch agree that the claims of OpenAI are bogus marketing hype and that we're currently at the cusp of a bursting AI bubble.
