> In other words, I derive enough value from "open source" models to not quibble over definitions
I have never said _anything_ about whether there is or isn't any value. Ive mentioned correctly that it isn't opensource.
I'm sorry you feel triggered by this, but both things can exist at the same time. It can be useful, come with a recipe, and it can stil not be opensource.
> At most they might replay some requests to a different REST API that returns a finetuned model for them. Sounds like what you do?
Please refrain from ad-hominem statements.
What I am saying is that when we redefine existed well understood definitions for marketing purposes as it muddies the waters.
On top of that, what if there are true opensource models that both provide training data + training code + inference code what do we call them? Extra opensource?
> I rely on models I've posttrained with custom vocublaries, run through AWQ specific to my downstream task, and that are being inferenced on with custom samplers specific to my downstream task. All things actually closed source models can't do.
Ironic that your comment contains the only problematic ad-hominem statement in this conversation...
You jumped straight to "you're triggered" when all I did was reject the idea that we should let people who aren't familiar with where value resides in the model pipeline get to define what parts of the pipeline need to be shared to count as open source.
My HF profile has over 50 post-tained models available for anyone to download by the way, and I've had sampler options upstreamed to multiple inference projects.
> Technically, R1 is “open” in that the model is permissively licensed, which means it can be deployed largely without restrictions. However, R1 isn’t “open source” by the widely accepted definition because some of the tools used to build it are shrouded in mystery. Like many high-flying AI companies, DeepSeek is loathe to reveal its secret sauce.
and
> You are right about the lack of data information for DeepSeek, which is a requirement from the OSAID.
That quote is straight up wrong to claim Deepseek has "loathed to reveal their secret sauce".
The source of all the excitement is exactly how much they revealed, and I feel like that thread as a whole emphasizes why people who aren't deeply familiar with the pipeline should not get to define these things.
There is a lot of detail about the nature of the data used and the exact steps needed to reproduce their findings with your own data. They even provide R1-Zero to demonstrate things that might be dead ends just in case someone can continue them. That should be enough to satisfy any useful definition of open source.
Even in the same thread you linked:
> Just a curiosity, according to the Model Openness Framework from the Linux Foundation, DeepSeek-R1 classifies as an Open Model:
At the end of the day this is as good as it needs to be for LLMs: By their nature a lot of data being used to train them cannot or should not be openly shared, but the shape and motivations behind the data used are able to push others very far along the way to reproduction and iteration.
I have never said _anything_ about whether there is or isn't any value. Ive mentioned correctly that it isn't opensource.
I'm sorry you feel triggered by this, but both things can exist at the same time. It can be useful, come with a recipe, and it can stil not be opensource.
> At most they might replay some requests to a different REST API that returns a finetuned model for them. Sounds like what you do?
Please refrain from ad-hominem statements.
What I am saying is that when we redefine existed well understood definitions for marketing purposes as it muddies the waters.
On top of that, what if there are true opensource models that both provide training data + training code + inference code what do we call them? Extra opensource?
> I rely on models I've posttrained with custom vocublaries, run through AWQ specific to my downstream task, and that are being inferenced on with custom samplers specific to my downstream task. All things actually closed source models can't do.
Great, please opensource them :)