trevor (he/they)

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.

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.

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.

Call it “open weight” if you want, but it’s not “fully open”. The training data is still proprietary, and the model can’t be accurately reproduced. It’s proprietary in the same way that llama is proprietary.

You don’t need port-forwading for torrenting. It’s more like a nice-to-have. Mullvad works fine without it, so don’t let that stop you if you’re on the fence.

You won’t see me on the side of the “debate” that launders language in defense of the owning class ¯_(ツ)_/¯

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

That’s fine if you think the algorithm is the most important thing. I think the training data is equally important, and I’m so frustrated by the bastardization of the meaning of “open source” as it’s applied to LLMs.

It’s like if a normal software product provides a thin wrapper over a proprietary library that you must link against calling their project open source. The wrapper is open, but the actual substance of what provides the functionality isn’t.

It’d be fine if we could just use more honest language like “open weight”, but “open source” means something different.

The training data is the important piece, and if that’s not open, then it’s not open source.

I don’t want the data to avoid using the official one. I want the data so that so that I can reproduce the model. Without the training data, you can’t reproduce the model, and if you can’t do that, it’s not open source.

The idea that a normal person can scrape the same amount and quality of data that any company or government can, and tune the weights enough to recreate the model is absurd.