trevor (he/they)

Okay, so this definitely feels like bad practice to not change the version number or URL, even in something trivial like example texts here. But what real-world significance does this have?

It almost seems equivalent to just changing a variable name based on how it’s being used, which – to be clear – should come with a version bump, but I can’t imagine this having any meaningful impact anywhere.

How would one DIY HDCP stripping? I’ve never looked into this.

Adopting that attitude toward anything is pretty self-defeating. It’s the same bad argument used against gun regulations in the US: “only misusers will have guns”.

Whether you agree with more or less regulations on anything, the “misusers will just do it anyway” is a bad argument.

Better to just roll over by default then, yeah /s

Yeah. The FSF is far from perfect as well.

Eh. I don’t really care what the OSI a handful of tech giants in a trenchcoat have to say about the ethics of my licenses.

If someone wants to allow modification, distribution, and usage of your software, in the spirit of open source, but don’t want it to be used by organizations that bomb children, I’d consider that better than an Open Source™️ license.

I use vertical tabs because horizontal tabs use more screen in wide aspect ratios (16:9 or greater) and I want to optimize my screen usage for the actual content, rather than the tabs.

What is the opposite of thoughts and prayers? Apathy and ill will?

Thoughts and prayers. It has the exact same effect as apathy and ill will.

Firefox’s version of MV3 explicitly supports the things that uBlock Origin needs to do. It’s not the same as Google’s malicious MV3 that was targeted at destroying adblockers.

It would be annoying if they removed MV2, but it wouldn’t break things like it did for Chromium.

I don’t disagree with any of this. We just also need to be realistic about the fact that viruses have no boundaries and they don’t discern between marginalized people and fascist shitheads when they mutate and spread.

That isn’t how this works. Herd immunity is extremely important for people who actually can’t safely be vaccinated, but more importantly, having large populations of anti-vaxxers will create ample opportunity for the viruses to mutate into forms that we don’t necessarily have vaccines for.

We are all truly fucked unless we deal with these scum. It’s not just going to hurt the people causing the problem, and it will spread to the rest of the world.

You can just write bash scripts in your actions if you want them to be easily replicatable on your local machine, so you don’t really lose anything with that system.

I’m a (mediocre) Rust dev, and I use GPL licenses for my projects. There’s nothing preventing you from doing so. I think the answer to your question is that it’s largely cultural.

This is literally the only humane way to keep everyone safe.

I just cant wrap my head around why they’re willing to go so far to gain good will from people by having such a generous free tier, but somehow licensing the code under a FOSS license is out of the question??

Why not just go all the way and make sure everyone who cares about reading the souce could also give you free contributions?

Yes, because private property is theft. But unequal enforcement of copyright law is worse. Right now, LLMs are just lying machines trained on pirated data and the companies that run them are acting with impunity for doing something a normal person would get put in jail for.

Copyright is immoral, but as long as it exists, the laws should be extra strict on companies that steal others’ works.

The relevant parts of the comment thread was about the claim that the model is open source. Below, you will find the subject of the comments bolded, for your better understanding of the conversation at hand:

Deepseek is a Chinese AI company that released Deepseek R1, a direct competitor to ChatGPT.

You forgot to mention that it’s open source.

Is it actually open source, or are we using the fake definition of “open source AI” that the OSI has massaged into being so corpo-friendly that the training data itself can be kept a secret?

many more inane comments…

And your most recent inane comment…

That’s something they included, just like open source games include content. I would not say that the model itself (DeepSeek-V3) is open source, but the tech is. It is such an obvious point that I should not have to state it.

Well, cool. No one ever claimed that “the tech” was not included or that parts of their process were open sourced. You answered a question that no one asked. The question was asking if the model itself is actually open source. No one has been able to substantiate the claim that the model is open source, which has made talking to you a giant waste of time.

They did not release the final model without the data

They literally did exactly that. Show me the training data. If it has been provided under an open source license, then I’ll revise my statement.

You literally cannot create a useful LLM without the training data. That is a part of the framework used to create the model, and they kept that proprietary. It is a part of the source. This is such an obvious point that I should not have to state it.

You’re conflating game engines being open source with the games themselves being proprietary. Proprietary products can use (some) open source things, but it doesnt make the end product open source.

Given that LLMs literally need the training data to be worth anything, releasing the final model without training data is not open source.

You can also fork proprietary code that is source available (depending on the specific terms of that particular proprietary license), but that doesn’t make it open source.

Fair point about llama not having open weights though. So it’s not as proprietary as llama. It still shouldn’t be called open source if the training data that it needs to function is proprietary.