←back to thread

Qwen VLo: From “Understanding” the World to “Depicting” It

(qwenlm.github.io)
221 points lnyan | 6 comments | 27 Jun 25 14:35 UTC | HN request time: 1.031s | source | bottom
Show context
rushingcreek ◴[27 Jun 25 14:51 UTC] No.44397235[source]▶
It doesn't seem to have open weights, which is unfortunate. One of Qwen's strengths historically has been their open-weights strategy, and it would have been great to have a true open-weights competitor to 4o's autoregressive image gen. There are so many interesting research directions that are only possible if we can get access to the weights.

If Qwen is concerned about recouping its development costs, I suggest looking at BFL's Flux Kontext Dev release from the other day as a model: let researchers and individuals get the weights for free and let startups pay for a reasonably-priced license for commercial use.

replies(4): >>44397843 #>>44397858 #>>44397893 #>>44398602 #
1. diggan ◴[27 Jun 25 16:03 UTC] No.44397858[source]▶
> One of Qwen's strengths historically has been their open-weights strategy [...] let researchers and individuals get the weights for free and let startups pay for a reasonably-priced license for commercial use.

But if you're suggesting they should do open weights, doesn't that mean people should be able to use it freely?

You're effectively suggesting "trial-weights", "shareware-weights", "academic-weights" or something like that rather than "open weights", which to me would make it seem like you can use them for whatever you want, just like with "open source" software. But if it misses a large part of what makes "open source" open source, like "use it for whatever you want", then it kind of gives the wrong idea.

replies(1): >>44397891 #
2. rushingcreek ◴[27 Jun 25 16:07 UTC] No.44397891[source]▶
I am personally in favor of true open source (e.g. Apache 2 license), but the reality is that these model are expensive to develop and many developers are choosing not to release their model weights at all.

I think that releasing the weights openly but with this type of dual-license (hence open weights, but not true open source) is an acceptable tradeoff to get more model developers to release models openly.

replies(1): >>44398288 #
3. diggan ◴[27 Jun 25 16:50 UTC] No.44398288[source]▶
> but the reality is that these model are expensive to develop and many developers are choosing not to release their model weights at all.

But isn't that true for software too? Software is expensive to develop, and lots of developers/companies are choosing not to make their code public for free. Does that mean you also feel like it would be OK to call software "open source" although it doesn't allow usage for any purpose? That would then lead to more "open source" software being released, at least for individuals and researchers?

replies(2): >>44398604 #>>44399878 #
4. rushingcreek ◴[27 Jun 25 17:24 UTC] No.44398604{3}[source]▶
Yes, I think the same analogy applies. Given a binary choice of a developer not releasing any code at all or releasing code under this type of binary "open-code" license, I'd always take the latter.
replies(1): >>44398701 #
5. diggan ◴[27 Jun 25 17:37 UTC] No.44398701{4}[source]▶
> Given a binary choice of a developer not releasing any code at all

I mean it wasn't binary earlier, it was "to get more model developers to release", so not a binary choice, but a gradient I suppose. Would you still make the same call for software as you do for ML models and weights?

6. hmottestad ◴[27 Jun 25 20:17 UTC] No.44399878{3}[source]▶
I wouldn't equate model weights with source code. You can run software on your own machine without source code, but you can't run an LLM on your own machine without model weights.

Though, you could still sell the model weights for local use. Not sure if we are there yet that I myself could buy model weights, but of course if you are a very big company or a very big country then I guess most AI companies would consider selling you their model weights so you can run them on your own machine.