upvote
You can choose to use the wrong words all you want. Doing so intentionally is an interesting choice.
reply
Communication is not a one-player game.

For example, if I was being pedantic:

> nobody seems to care about using the right words in only this context.

"nobody" would include you.

And then I might complain about we use the word "weight" for something massless, or how "bugs me" is *ento*mologically incorrect: https://xkcd.com/1012/

This is of course not a good use of time. I wonder if illustrating the point about how language is dynamic and meanings are descriptive not proscriptive, was a good use?

reply
yeah, I'm not sure what your goal is pedantically picking apart my argument when the subject at hand is clearly not "open source". love xkcd though. :P
reply
The point is to give you empathy for those you disagree with here.
reply
We're not talking about standard code here. It's totally reasonable to change the meaning depending on context.
reply
I vehemently disagree. There's no source and it's not open, the licenses are often abysmal too.
reply
Yup. An extremist wing of the FOSS movement ceded the debate early on by trying to insist open source required full access to the training data. Philosophically, not wrong. But practically fucked, so the word evolved.

Within tech circles, open weight != open source. Outside them, they’re synonyms.

reply
Training data without the training regime is useless. A cake is not open source because they list the ingredients.
reply
Open source captures a practical utility as well as a philosophy. When those two cease to converge, the practical prerogative wins.

The correct battle would have been weights + regime. But extremists insisted on data, too, which left Meta as the only other real voice arguing with anything practical. They had open weights. I think eventually open use was negotiated and that closed the case except for the folks still arguing about how to pronounce GIF.

reply
deleted
reply
Isn't open source not the ingredients but the recipe?
reply
Example: The first time I saw the New York Times use “Open Source” in a headline, what they meant was open weights.
reply
also, you can do a lot to finetune or repurpose an open weight model. much more easily than you can mod closed source binaries.
reply
deleted
reply