Prunebutt @ Prunebutt @slrpnk.net

Posts

10

Comments

1,314

Joined

2 yr. ago

You can read all the other comments which explained why it is not open source. You can't really retrain the model without petabytes of data. Even if you "train" stuff on your dataset: it's more like tweaking the model weights a bit, rather than building the model from scratch.

"Open source" is PR talk by Meta and deepseek.

Just regurgitating propaganda.

No u.

Communism is defined by worker control of the means of production

No, that's socialism. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

Also, the workers in China aren't in control of the means of production. The bureaucrats and capitalists are.

That’s how they lifted 800 million people out of poverty

While I applaud the better living standards: I see no contradiction to capitalism. Marx himself wrote:

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

Simply participating in markets does not make a country capitalist

No, but state ownership of the means of production makes a country state capitalist.

Let's come back to your initial point: you accused me of dismissing an LLM, because it is "communist". Comrade, I'm an anarcho-communist. I dislike all the hypetrain riding, water gobbling sharlatans in the current so-called "AI" bubble: Altman, Pashaj (don't know how to write him), Zuckerberg and Musk. I like it if the market get disrupted, but I don't like it if the AI trend continues to wreak havoc on nature.

Btw: how is deepseek "energy efficient"?

And also: All that has squat to do with open source or not.

I was specifically addressing the use of the phrase "open source". And the term "open data" doesn't apply either, since it's not a dataset that's distributed, but rather weights of an LLM with data baked into it. That's neither open source nor open data.

I'm not into gambling and know that the house always wins.

The differenge is that the dataset is baked into the weights of the model. Your emulation analogy simply doesn't have a leg to stand on. I don't think you know how neural networks work.

The standards are literally the basis of open source.

China is a state-capitalist, bourgeois society. They're not a communist society.

Also: LLMs aren't energy efficient.

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.

Ok, then my definition givenwas too narrow, when I said "reproducable binaries". If data claims to be "open source", then it needs to supply information on how to reproduce it.

Open data has other criteria, I'm sure.

I'm including Facebook's LLM in my critique. And I dislike the current hype on LLMs, no matter where they're developed.

And LLMs are not "AI". I've called them "so-called 'AIs'" waaay before.

communist developed, energy efficient AI.

lol

Yeah, let's all base our decisions and definitions on what the stock market dictates. What could possibly go wrong?

/s 🙄

Sorry, that was a PR move from the get-go. Sam Altman doesn't have an altruistic cell in his whole body.

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.

Nah, just a 21st century Luddite.

Yet another so-called AI evangelist accusing others of not understanding computer science if they don't want to worship their machine god.

Yes. The training data is probably a few hundred petabytes.

There were e|forts. Facebook didn't like those. (Since their models wouldn't be considered open source anymore)

You downloaded the weights. That's something different.

They could disclose how they sourced the training data, what the training data is and how you could source it. Also, did they publish their hyperparameters?

They could jpst not call it Open Source, if you can't open source it.

Did "they" publish the training data? And the hyperparameters?