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.
Seems kinda reductive about what makes it different from most other LLM’s. Reading the comments i see the issue is that the training data is why some consider it not open source, but isn’t that just trained from the other AI? It’s not why this AI is special. And the way it uses that data, afaik, is open and editable, and the license to use it is open. Whats the issue here?
Seems kinda reductive about what makes it different from most other LLM’s
The other LLMs aren't open source, either.
isn’t that just trained from the other AI?
Most certainly not. If it were, it wouldn't output coherent text, since LLM output degenerates if you human-centipede its' outputs.
And the way it uses that data, afaik, is open and editable, and the license to use it is open.
From that standpoint, every binary blob should be considered "open source", since the machine instructions are readable in RAM.
The point of open source is access to reproducability the weights are the end products (like a binary blob), you need to supply a way on how the end product is created to be open source.
So its not how it tokenized the data you are looking for, it’s not how the weights are applied you want, and it’s not how it functions to structure the output you want because these are all open… it’s the entirety of the bulk unfiltered data you want. Of which deepseek was provided from other ai projects for initial training, can be changed to fit user needs, and doesnt touch on at all how this LLM is different from other LLM’s? This would be as i understand it… like saying that an open source game emulator can’t be open source because Nintendo games are encapsulated? I don’t consider the training data to be the LLM. I consider the system that manipulated that data to be the LLM. Is that where the difference in opinion is?
it’s the entirety of the bulk unfiltered data you want
Or more realistically: a description of how you could source the data.
doesnt touch on at all how this LLM is different from other LLM’s?
Correct. Llama isn't open source, either.
like saying that an open source game emulator can’t be open source because Nintendo games are encapsulated
Not at all. It's like claiming an emulator is open source, because it has a plugin system, but you need a closed source build dependency that the developer doesn't disclose to the puplic.
Source build dependency… so you don’t have a problem with the LLM at all! You have a problem with the data collection process or the pre-training! So an emulator can’t be open source if the methodology on how the developers discovered how to read Nintendo ROM’s was not disclosed? Or which games were dissected in order to reverse engineer that info? I don’t consider that a prerequisite to say an emulator is open
So if i say… remove the data set from deepseek what remains would be considered open source by you?
So an emulator can’t be open source if the methodology on how the developers discovered how to read Nintendo ROM’s was discovered?
No. The emulator is open source if it supplies the way on hou to get the binary in the end. I don't know how else to explain it to you: No LLM is open source.
So i still don’t see your issue with deepseek, because just like an emulator, everything is open source, with the exception of the data. The end result is dependent on the ROM put in to it, you can always make your own ROM, if you had the tools, and the end result followed the expected format. And if the ROM was removed the emulator is still the emulator.
So if deep seek removed its data set, would you then consider deepseek open source?
The engine is open source, the model is not.
The enumqtor is open source, the games it can run are not.
I don't see how it's so hard to understand.
They are saying that the model that the engine is running is open source because they released the model. That's like saying that a game is open source because I released an emulator and the exscutable file. It's just not true.
everything is open source, with the exception of the data
If I distribute a set consisting of emulator and a Rom of a closed source game (without the sourcecode), then the full set is not open source.
So if deep seek removed its data set, would you then consider deepseek open source?
Kind of, but that's like expecting a console without any firmware. The Weights are the important bit of an LLM distribution.
So like an emulator. Or at least the PS2 ones when you had to dump your bios from your machine (or snatch someone else’s).
But that’s my point! The data set is interchangeable. So Its not what makes the deepseek, THE deepseek LLM . But without the data set it would be functionally useless. And there would be no way possible to satisfy your requirement for data set openness. You said there is some line in the sand somewhere where you might be satisfied with some amount of the data, but your argument states that granularity must be absolute in order to justify calling it open source. You demand an impossible unnecessary standard that is not held to other open source projects.
A closer analogy would be only providing the binary output of the emulator build and calling it open source. If you can't reproduce building the output from what they provide in what way is it reproducible? The model is the output, the training data and algorithm to build the model based on the training data are the input.
Edit: Say I have a Java project I want to open source. Normally (oversimplifying a bit) it goes .java source files used with a compiler to build intermediate bytecode in .class files, then there's a just in time (JIT) compilation to create the binary code as it runs in the JVM. It's not open source if I only share the class files, even if I can use them to recreate source files that can be recompiled into the same class files. Starting at an intermediate step of the process isn't the source.
Would it? Not sure how that would be a better analogy. The argument is that it’s nearly all open… but it still does not count because the data set before it’s manipulated by the LLM (in my analogy the data set the emulator is using would be a Nintendo ROM) is not open. A data set that if provided would be so massive, it would render the point of tokenization pointless and be completely unusable by literally ANYONE without multiple data centers redlining for WEEKS. Under that standard of scrutiny not only could there never be an LLM that would qualify, but projects that are considered open source would not be. Thus making the distinction meaningless.
An emulator without a ROM mounted is still an emulator, even if not usable.
I don't understand your objections. Even if the amount of data is rather big, it doesn't change that this data is part of the source, and leaving it out makes the whole project non-open-source.
Under that standard of scrutiny not only could there never be an LLM that would qualify, but projects that are considered open source would not be. Thus making the distinction meaningless.
What? No? Open-source projects literally do meet this standard.
It’s just AI haters trying to find any way to disparage AI. They’re trying to be “holier than thou”.
The model weights are data, not code. It’s perfectly fine to call it open source even though you don’t have the means to reproduce the data from scratch. You are allowed to modify and distribute said modifications so it’s functionally free (as in freedom) anyway.
Let's transfer your bullshirt take to the kernel, shall we?
The kernel is instructions, not code. It’s perfectly fine to call it open source even though you don’t have the code to reproduce the kernel from scratch. You are allowed to modify and distribute said modifications so it’s functionally free (as in freedom) anyway.
🤡
Edit: It's more that so-called "AI" stakeholders want to launder it's reputation with the "open source" label.
Right. You could train it yourself too. Though its scope would be limited based on capability. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Taking a class? Feed it your text book. Or other available sources, and it can help you on that subject. Just because it’s hard didn’t mean it’s not open
The weights aren't the source, they're the output. Modifying the weights is analogous to editing a compiled binary, and the training dataset is analogous to source code.
Are you talking source as in source code? Or are you talking about source as in the data the llm uses? Because the source code is available. The weights are not the output, they are a function. The LLM response is The output
but the weights can be changed, the input data can be changed. And if they are… it’s still deepseek and if you can change them they are not what makes deepseek; deepseek.
I use boot.dev it has an AI. But they changed the data set to only cover relevant topics, and changed its weights, and gave it tone instruction. And wile it plays a character, it’s still chatgpt.
I used the word "source" a couple times in that post.. The first time was in a general sense, as an input to generate an output. The training data is the source, the model is the "function" (using the mathematics definition here, NOT the computer science definition!), and the weights are the output. The second use was "source code."
Weights can be changed just like a compiled binary can be changed. Closed source software can be modified without having access to the source code.
The LLM is a machine that when simplified down takes two inputs. A data set, and weight variables. These two inputs are not the focus of the software, as long as the structure is valid, the machine will give an output. The input is not the machine, and the machines source code is open source. The machine IS what is revolutionary about this LLM. Its not being praised because its weights are fine tuned, it didn’t sink Nvidia’s stock price by 700 billion because it has extra special training data. Its special because of its optimizations, and its novel method of using two halves to bounce ideas back and forth and to value its answers. Its the methodology of its function. And that is given to you open to see its source code
I don't know what, if any, CS background you have, but that is way off. The training dataset is used to generate the weights, or the trained model. In the context of building a trained LLM model, the input is the dataset and the output is the trained model, or weights.
It's more appropriate to call deepseek "open-weight" rather than open-source.
What most people understand as deepseek is the app thauses their trained model, not the running or training engines.
This post mentions open source, not open source code, big distinction. The source of a trained model is part the training engine, and way bigger part the input data. We only have access to a fraction of that "source". So the service isn't open source.
Just to make clear, no LLM service is open source currently.
You could train it yourself too.
How, without information on the dataset and the training code?
It's not hard. There's lots of tutorials out there.
Tutorials won't disclose the data used to train the model.
Yes. Wouldn't be a tutorial if it did.
So the models aren't opn source 🙄
Because the tutorials are on point?
I haven't seen any tutorials that include the training data. As you highlight, these would make for poor tutorials. If you know where there are more complete tutorials, I'd appreciate it if you could share them
Training code created by the community always pops up shortly after release. It has happened for every major model so far. Additionally you have never needed the original training dataset to continue training a model.
So, Ocarina of Time is considered open source now, since it's been decompiled by the community, or what?
Community effort and the ability to build on top of stuff doesn't make anything open source.
Also: initial training data is important.
So i am leaning as much as i can here, so bear with me. But it accepts tokenized data and structures it via a transformer as a json file or sun such. The weights are a binary file that’s separate and is used to, well, modify the tokenized data to generate outcomes. As long as you used a compatible tokenization structure, and weights structure, you could create a new training set. But that can be done with any LLM. You can’t pull the data from this just as you can’t make wheat from dissecting bread. But they provide the tools to set your own data, and the way the LLM handles that data is novel, due to being hamstrung by US sanctions. A “necessity is the mother of invention” and all that. Running comparable ai’s on inferior hardware and much smaller budget is what makes this one stand out, not the training data.
It's still not open source. No matter how extendable the weights are.
I mean, this does not help me understand.
https://slrpnk.net/comment/13455788
Edit: this one is a more thorough explanation: https://lemmy.ml/comment/16365208
Another theory is that it's the copyright industry at work. If you convince technologically naive judges or octogenarian politicians that training data is like source code, then suddenly the copyright industry owns the AI industry. Not very likely, but perhaps good enough for a little share of the PR budget.