undefined

points

[-]

Even if they did that, you would have no way of verifying that the data they upload and the model they claim to have trained is the weights they have shared. It’s a nonsensical idea.

If you want a trusted public model, we need to start a foundation that does it. The Linux of AI.

You’re going to need some serious money though.

by simias15 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'm aware that in 2026 this is science fiction, but if the rate of computer improvement over the next 40 years matches that of the past 40, this is not going to remain sci-fi for extremely long in the grand scheme of things.

I hope that the long term future of AI is more like Linux and less like Windows.

by whatisthiseven16 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

You don't have access to the compute necessary to rebuild the original model even if all the original training data, custom human interventions, and RNG seeds were documented and released.

It is not a good faith request.

Also, what is this obsession with reproducing? Even if you could reproduce it, down to the RNG seed, that tells you nothing about whether or not some of the training data was malicious. You'd need an AI to go through the data and figure out if there is some malicious needle in a multi-petabyte dataset.

Releasing the model is good enough, because it is the only practical reality that makes sense.

by simias15 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

To be clear I was making a wish for the future, I wasn't saying that Mistral were bad for not doing this today, that obviously wouldn't really be technically feasible.

Given the rate of progress of LLMs, I wouldn't be surprised if we had decent fully open and reproducible models within a decade or so, especially once the current spike in hardware price passes and building a local training cluster will be more realistic.