Comment Comment by wyldfire EDIT - the title formerly referred to "Qualcomm open sources ...."Calling freely downloadable weights "Open Source" quite diminishes the term. It's laudable, so I'd hate to discourage it. But it's not Open Source.What constitutes Open Source is not vague, btw. it's well defined by the OSI [1].Let's call it open weights or freely downloadable weights or something.EDIT: I was mistaken - they are down sampled/right-sized w half precision:BTW props to Qualcomm but these are "just" quantized versions of existing models? Useful, yes, but maybe not that novel.[1] https://opensource.org/osd parent wyldfire 2 years ago
Calling freely downloadable weights "Open Source" quite diminishes the term. It's laudable, so I'd hate to discourage it. But it's not Open Source.
What constitutes Open Source is not vague, btw. it's well defined by the OSI [1].
Let's call it open weights or freely downloadable weights or something.
EDIT: I was mistaken - they are down sampled/right-sized w half precision:
BTW props to Qualcomm but these are "just" quantized versions of existing models? Useful, yes, but maybe not that novel.
[1] https://opensource.org/osd