OpenAI scrapped a promise to disclose key documents to the public

(www.wired.com)

Show context

mgreg ◴[24 Jan 24 19:55 UTC] No.39121867[source]▶

Unsurprising but disappointing none-the-less. Let’s just try to learn from it.

It’s popular in the AI space to claim altruism and openness; OpenAI, Anthropic and xAI (the new Musk one) all have a funky governance structure because they want to be a public good. The challenge is once any of these (or others) start to gain enough traction that they are seen as having a good chance at reaping billions in profits things change.

And it’s not just AI companies and this isn’t new. This is art of human nature and will always be.

We should be putting more emphasis and attention on truly open AI models (open training data, training source code & hyperparameters, model source code, weights) so the benefits of AI accrue to the public and not just a few companies.

[edit - eliminated specific company mentions]

replies(17): >>39122377 #>>39122548 #>>39122564 #>>39122633 #>>39122672 #>>39122681 #>>39122683 #>>39122910 #>>39123084 #>>39123321 #>>39124167 #>>39124930 #>>39125603 #>>39126566 #>>39126621 #>>39127428 #>>39132151 #

1. rkagerer ◴[24 Jan 24 21:35 UTC] No.39122910[source]▶

>>39121867 #

open training data, training source code & hyperparameters, model source code, weights

I'm not an FSF hippie or anything (meant that in an endearing way), but even I know if it's missing these it can't be called "open source" in the first place.

replies(1): >>39124437 #

2. nomel ◴[25 Jan 24 00:09 UTC] No.39124437[source]▶

>>39122910 (TP) #

I don't think the weights are required. They're an artifact created from burning vast amounts of money. Providing the source/methods that would allow one, with the same amount of money, to reproduce those weights, should still be considered open source. Similarly, you can still have open source software without a compiled binary, and, you can have open source hardware, without providing the actual, costly, hardware.

replies(1): >>39125868 #

3. tbrownaw ◴[25 Jan 24 03:20 UTC] No.39125868[source]▶

>>39124437 #

The popularity of fine-tuning demonstrates that the weights are actually the preferred form for making changes.

The precursor form (training data etc) is only needed if you want to recreate it from scratch. Which is too expensive to bother with.

replies(1): >>39127454 #

4. nomel ◴[25 Jan 24 08:31 UTC] No.39127454{3}[source]▶

>>39125868 #

My point is, wanting a finished product that cost millions, without paying for it, is very different than it being open sourced. Models are an artifact, a result, not a source.

replies(2): >>39127476 #>>39128242 #

5. sooheon ◴[25 Jan 24 08:35 UTC] No.39127476{4}[source]▶

>>39127454 #

Great point. Open source is different from free product.

6. sirsinsalot ◴[25 Jan 24 10:54 UTC] No.39128242{4}[source]▶

>>39127454 #

I would argue that the weights are as much source code as source code. Them being generated doesn't demote them.

I don't even think the distinction is important. The "system" should be open, and that includes data central to the system's operation within certain bounds.

You can open source parts of a system at whichever fine slice you wish, you just have the part which is open A and the part which isn't B.

It's the value of A and B being open that matters, not what A and B are composed of.

replies(1): >>39132551 #

7. ◴[25 Jan 24 18:11 UTC] No.39132551{5}[source]▶

>>39128242 #

↑