• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    912 months ago

    AI models trained on public information should be open sourced and publicly available.

    Billionaire’s should not own this behind closed doors.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      262 months ago

      Silicon Valley is just a scam. They’ve made billions off selling your data, and selling targeted ads with your own data to be shoved back into your face. Social media has ruined society. Every “innovation” has been some way of stealing from you, whether it’s your data, your attention, or now, the entirety of documented humanity.

      /end yelling at clouds

  • Tony Bark
    link
    fedilink
    English
    232 months ago

    Good luck with that. DeepSeek has already been reverse engineered.

      • Dran
        link
        fedilink
        English
        262 months ago

        “Open source” in ML is a really bad description for what it is. “Free binary with a bit of metadata” would be more accurate. The code used to create deepseek is not open source, nor is the training datasets. 99% of “open source” models are this way. The only interesting part of the open sourcing is the architecture used to run the models, as it lends a lot of insight into the training process, and allows for derivatives via post-training

      • Tony Bark
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Yes, and no. Yes in that they’ve released the research papers, pretrained parameters and weights of the model itself. Which is more than I can say for “OpenAI.” But no in that it doesn’t include training data or other critical components. Luckily, they’ve shown how they did it which makes it easy for anyone else to reverse engineer the process. That’s what Altman is afraid of.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    522 months ago

    Capitalists the moment the free market™️ no longer works for them: “I love state intervention!”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    172 months ago

    They should probably just focus on their products. They introduced so much ‘guardrailing’ into their product its practically useless. Beyond that, there is a crap ton that can be done with the current crop. There are no guarantee’s of a technical moat and we don’t know where the next advance will come from.

    I mean hell, google slept on transformers after creating them in the first place and ended up scooped by OpenAI’s team. So who knows.

    But good product, good UI, no BS, no gimmicks, that sells. If OpenAI is that company, I’ll bite. If they arent, I shop with my feet.

    One example of a product I would buy right now. I give the agent/ system my shitty sloppy demo code in a ipython notebook. Its shitty, but it works. Maybe I have to give it an example of what “correct” output needs to look like.

    And then… I walk the fuck away. And in an hour (or two, I don’t give a shit), and my demo research code has been committed to a production ready git.

    Instead they are doing, whatever the fuck they think they are doing with “Deep Research”, which, as of every use I’ve tried to make of it. Its completely worthless.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    68
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    The USA wants a world where AI wants is given permission to consume all copyrighted content for free, but we are charged for access to scholarly papers.