I don’t see how open-source can be authoritarian. I mess with generative AI as a hobby, mainly image creation. While closed source models like Runway and Klink are impressive open-source ones like Wan2.1 are just so much more flexible. Mostly thanks to Loras and controlnets developed by hobbyists or 3rd parties. Not only that, but the fact you can generate locally till little hearts content for free is so much more enjoyable then getting nickel and dimed by some AI company.
They’re the ones who are putting the open-source base models out in the first place. If I write a program myself and release it as open source, I have every right to subsequently release a closed-source version. But I can’t rescind the license on the version I released previously (any open source license with a clause allowing that should be treated with immense suspicion) so anyone else can keep building on that version if they want.
You don’t need to close the source to make X authoritatian. The existing unequality in (computational) power can’t be penetrated as it is, without regulations, that’s why it’s so sexy for Google and the likes, and the only reason to close the source for them is to fuck with each other. The means of training models and dictating their usage is in the hands of those who can afford that.
If one day portrayal of taco gets shadowbanned and you’d want to generate one, you’d not find a big model that can draw it unless you waste days training your own Taco model.
I don’t see how open-source can be authoritarian. I mess with generative AI as a hobby, mainly image creation. While closed source models like Runway and Klink are impressive open-source ones like Wan2.1 are just so much more flexible. Mostly thanks to Loras and controlnets developed by hobbyists or 3rd parties. Not only that, but the fact you can generate locally till little hearts content for free is so much more enjoyable then getting nickel and dimed by some AI company.
Yeah, Altman just calls things he doesn’t like “Authoritarian” because he’s an American.
Corporations are run like autocracies, too, so there’s some irony in that.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
They can take open-source products, extend them to become the dominant player, and then close them.
Yeah it’s a violation of the license. What are you gonna do about it?
They’re the ones who are putting the open-source base models out in the first place. If I write a program myself and release it as open source, I have every right to subsequently release a closed-source version. But I can’t rescind the license on the version I released previously (any open source license with a clause allowing that should be treated with immense suspicion) so anyone else can keep building on that version if they want.
I’ll keep supporting Mistral 😶🌫️
Isn’t it basically what all big techs do nowadays? Hence enshittification of Internet.
You don’t need to close the source to make X authoritatian. The existing unequality in (computational) power can’t be penetrated as it is, without regulations, that’s why it’s so sexy for Google and the likes, and the only reason to close the source for them is to fuck with each other. The means of training models and dictating their usage is in the hands of those who can afford that.
If one day portrayal of taco gets shadowbanned and you’d want to generate one, you’d not find a big model that can draw it unless you waste days training your own Taco model.