The weights are, for all practical purposes, source code in their own right. The GPL defines "source code" as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". Almost no one would be capable of reproducing them even if given the source + data. At the same time, the weights are exactly what you need for the one type of modification that's within reach of most people: fine-tuning. That they didn't release the surrounding code that produced this "source" isn't that much different than a company releasing a library but not their whole software stack.
I'd argue that "source" vs "weights" is a dangerous distraction from the far more insidious word in "open source" when used to refer to the Llama license: "open".
The Llama 3.1 license [0] specifically forbids its use by very large organizations, by militaries, and by nuclear industries. It also contains a long list of forbidden use cases. This specific list sounds very reasonable to me on its face, but having a list of specific groups of people or fields of endeavor who are banned from participating runs counter to the spirit of open source and opens up the possibility that new "open" licenses come out with different lists of forbidden uses that sound less reasonable.
To be clear, I'm totally fine with them having those terms in their license, but I'm uncomfortable with setting the precedent of embracing the word "open" for it.
Llama is "nearly-open source". That's good enough for me to be able to use it for what I want, but the word "open" is the one that should be called out. "Source" is fine.
[0] https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models/blob/main/models/...
Fine-tuning and LoRAs and toying with the runtime are all directly equivalent to DLL injection[0], trainers[1], and various other techniques used to tweak a compiled binary before or at runtime, including plain taking at the executable with a hex editor. Just because that's all anyone except the model vendor is able to do, doesn't merit calling the models "open source", much like no one would call binary-only software "open source" just because reverse engineering is a thing.
No, the weights are just artifacts. The source is the dataset and the training code (and possibly the training parameters). This isn't fundamentally different from running an advanced solver for a year, to find a way to make your program 100 byes smaller so it can fit on a Tamagochi. The resulting binary is magic, can't be reproduced without spending $$$$ on compute for th solver, but it is not open source. The source code is the bit that (produced the original binary that) went into the optimizer.
Calling these models "open source" is a runaway misuse of the term, and in some cases, a sleigh of hand.
--
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLL_injection
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainer_(games) - a type of programs popular some 20 years ago, used to cheat at, or mod, single-player games, by keeping track of and directly modifying the memory of the game process. Could be as simple as continuously resetting the ammo counter, or as complex as injecting assembly to add new UI elements.
No, because fine tuning is basically just a continuation of the same process that the original creators used to produce the weights in the first place, in the same way that modifying source code directly is in traditional open source. You pick up where they left off with new data and train it a little bit (or a lot!) more to adapt it to your use case.
The weights themselves are the computer program. There exists no corresponding source code. The code you're asking for corresponds not to the source code of a traditional program but to the programmers themselves and the processes used to write the code. Demanding the source code and data that produced the weights is equivalent to demanding a detailed engineering log documenting the process of building the library before you'll accept it as open source.
Just because you can't read it doesn't make it not source code. Once you have the weights, you are perfectly capable of modifying them following essentially the same processes the original authors did, which are well known and well documented in plenty of places with or without the actual source code that implements that process.
> Calling these models "open source" is a runaway misuse of the term, and in some cases, a sleigh of hand.
I agree wholeheartedly, but not because of "source". The sleight of hand is getting people to focus on that instead of the really problematic word.
No, because most video games aren't licensed in a way that makes that explicitly authorized, nor is modding the preferred form of the work for making modifications. The video game has source code that would be more useful, the model does not have source code that would be more useful than the weights.
I suppose language changes. I just prefer it changes towards being more precise, not less.
Not sure if the code is required under an open source license, but it's the same issue.
---
IMO, source is source and can be used for other datasets. Dataset isn't available, bring your own.
In this case, the source is there. The output is there, and not technically required. What isn't available is the ability to confirm the output comes from that source. That's not required under open source though.
What's disingenuous is the output being called 'open source'.
When you require the same thing in software, namely the whole stack to run the software in question to be open source, we don't call the license open source.
Hell, in case of the models, "the whole stack to run the software" already is open source. Literally everything except the actual sources - the datasets and the build scripts (code doing the training) - is available openly. This is almost a literal inverse of "open source", thus shouldn't be called "open source".
If some "opensource" model just have the model and training methods but no dataset, it’s like some repo which released an executable file with a detailed design doc. Where is the source code? Do it yourself, please.
NOTE: I understand the difficulty of open-sourcing datasets. I'm just saying that the term "opensource" is getting diluted.
