upvote

points

by Mr_P1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby Aachen1 days ago|
next
[-]
Could say the same for camera processing in the Pixel Camera app or any other binary someone wants to re-use that comes included in a software distribution (seemingly for 'free'). They can't lock the instructions up on the server so they might as well make the binary be freely distributable?

Companies don't commonly give away executable binaries "just because", why'd they start now for these binary blobs that are the models?

Not that I'm unhappy about it! Yay for open data any day, I'm just not understanding why, at least beyond PR in nerd circles

reply
upvoteby lukeschlather1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Binaries are source code outputs, they are copyrightable and patentable. Weights are not copyrightable so people can freely extract the weights and run them. If Google patents any of the novel algorithms here releasing it all freely isn't an impediment to making people license it.
reply
upvoteby Aachen20 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Weights are not copyrightable?!

Are you sure that isn't about LLMs' outputs? There I know there have been some court cases that say this, but the model itself is a work created in intricate and somewhat creative ways (I hesitate to use the word "creative" here, but would similarly hesitate to label a routine picture of the moon creative whereas pictures basically always have copyright; the bar for creativity is basically an epsilon amount above zero, afaik)

reply
upvoteby jack_pp1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Because a model like this can't be as easily obfuscated as image processing. Image processing is a bundle of many moving parts, a lot of functions each with it's own inputs and outputs. A model is a single function which can be easily extracted and reused, in comparison
reply
upvoteby Aachen20 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Arguably, but that's not the point. Take image (e.g. png) files on a CD-ROM shipped by a game vendor, which can be trivially copied even by my grandma. That doesn't move the game vendor to release them as freely distributable under the Apache license
reply
upvoteby jack_pp19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Good point but still, why would Google police this model? If they had a restrictive licence on it do you think it would be worth it for them to enforce it? This way they at least buy some good will and mindshare
reply
upvoteby Aachen18 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That makes sense to me. Guess one might say the same for game icons and other such files that lay around in disks, but yeah maybe it's as simple as that
reply
upvoteby jack_pp18 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Not quite the same, understandably Blizzard cares a lot about their IP because otherwise private servers leech their users. Maybe a small game designer cares a lot about the small game they made or whatever since that's all they have. A four trillion market cap company can afford to be "charitable".. where it costs them nothing and might cost them more to enforce their rights.
reply
upvoteby panarky1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> can't lock down those weights

They could lock them down legally which would prevent commercial use, but they choose not to, and they boast about how many tens of millions of times Gemma models have been downloaded by developers.

So there must be more to the rationale than just local model weights getting hacked out of devices.

reply
upvoteby goobatrooba23 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
But these can't be the same model - the model is far too demanding to be part of regular chrome for most people.
reply