• trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Yes. That solution would be to not lie about it by calling something that isn’t open source “open source”.

      • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I mean, god bless 'em for stealing already-stolen data from scumfuck tech oligarchs and causing a muti-billion dollar devaluation in the AI bubble. If people could just stop laundering the term “open source”, that’d be great.

        • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I don’t really think they are stealing, because I don’t believe publicly available information can be property. The algorithm is open source so it is a correct labelling

          • trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            24 hours ago

            My use of the word “stealing” is not a condemnation, so substitute it with “borrowing” or “using” if you want. It was already stolen by other tech oligarchs.

            You can call the algo open source if the code is available under an OSS license. But the larger project still uses proprietary training data, and therefor the whole model, which requires proprietary training data to function is not open source.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Plenty of debate on what classifies as an open source model last I checked, but I wasn’t expecting honesty from you there anyways.