Read the piece on alessiofanelli.com ↗
Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.
Their wordsBut while I agree that LLaMA2 cannot be called open source in the traditional meaning of the word, I also think that it doesn’t matter. The term “open source” needs to evolve (once again) in the world of AI models.
Our reading
It is fine that “open source” and “open weights” will be used interchangeably for AI models.
Their wordsFor the foreseeable future, open source and open weights will be used interchangeably, and I think that’s okay.
Their wordsIt’s okay to be disappointed with the LLaMA2 license, but Meta just packaged ~$2M worth of FLOPS into a Github repo, and I think that will be a net positive for the progress of this space.
Keep reading
The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.