Looking forward to when Europe and China also launch their own satellite internet constellations

I like using it like a rubber ducky. I even have it respond almost entirely in quacks.

Note: it’s a local model running for free. Don’t pay anyone for this slop.

“When asked about buggy AI, a common refrain is ‘it is not my code,’ meaning they feel less accountable because they didn’t write it.”

That’s… That’s so fucking cool…

You said open source. Open source is a type of licensure.

The entire point of licensure is legal pedantry.

And as far as your metaphor is concerned, pre-trained models are closer to pre-compiled binaries, which are expressly not considered Open Source according to the OSD.

Oh and for the OSAID part, the only issue stopping Whisper from being considered open source as per the OSAID is that the information on the training data is published through arxiv, so using the data as written could present licensing issues.

The problem with just shipping AI model weights is that they run up against the issue of point 2 of the OSD:

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

AI models can’t be distributed purely as source because they are pre-trained. It’s the same as distributing pre-compiled binaries.

It’s the entire reason the OSAID exists:

1. The OSD doesn’t fit because it requires you distribute the source code in a non-preprocessed manner.
2. AIs can’t necessarily distribute the training data alongside the code that trains the model, so in order to help bridge the gap the OSI made the OSAID - as long as you fully document the way you trained the model so that somebody that has access to the training data you used can make a mostly similar set of weights, you fall within the OSAID

Edit: also the information about the training data has to be published in an OSD-equivalent license (such as creative Commons) so that using it doesn’t cause licensing issues with research paper print companies (like arxiv)

Whisper’s code and model weights are released under the MIT License. See LICENSE for further details. So that definitely meets the Open Source Definition on your first link.

Model weights by themselves do not qualify as “open source”, as the OSAID qualifies. Weights are not source.

Additional WER/CER metrics corresponding to the other models and datasets can be found in Appendix D.1, D.2, and D.4 of the paper, as well as the BLEU (Bilingual Evaluation Understudy) scores for translation in Appendix D.3.

This is not training data. These are testing metrics.

Edit: additionally, assuming you might have been talking about the link to the research paper. It’s not published under an OSD license. If it were this would qualify the model.

Those aren’t open source, neither by the OSI’s Open Source Definition nor by the OSI’s Open Source AI Definition.

The important part for the latter being a published listing of all the training data. (Trainers don’t have to provide the data, but they must provide at least a way to recreate the model given the same inputs).

Data information: Sufficiently detailed information about the data used to train the system, so that a skilled person can recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data. Data information shall be made available with licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition.

They are model-available if anything.

Those aren’t open source, neither by the OSI’s Open Source Definition nor by the OSI’s Open Source AI Definition.

The important part for the latter being a published listing of all the training data. (Trainers don’t have to provide the data, but they must provide at least a way to recreate the model given the same inputs).

Data information: Sufficiently detailed information about the data used to train the system, so that a skilled person can recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data. Data information shall be made available with licenses that comply with the Open Source Definition.

They are model-available if anything.

LLMs as they stand are already approaching the improvement flatline portion of the sigma curve due to marginal data requirements increasing exponentially.

It’s a known problem in the actual AI research field that nobody in private industry likes to talk about.

If it scores 40% this year it’ll marginally increase by 10% next year then 5% 3 years later and so on.

AI doesn’t follow Moore’s law.

You’re anthropomorphizing LLMs.

There’s a philosophical and neuroscuence concept called “Qualia,” which helps define the human experience. LLMs have no Qualia.

By the way if anyone’s curious yes you can crush up Viagra, put it in Vaseline, and use it as a cream.

Yes you can put it there, and yes it’s effective.

I’ve done it multiple times for people that would regularly go over that five hour limit, because skin absorption is slower and weaker than intestinal absorption.

Only EC(Enteric Coated) pills and capsule interiors cause they protect the pill against stomach acid until it reaches the intestine.

If it’s got a shiny exterior like an Advil it’s Enteric coated. If it’s a capsule with EC granules you’re gonna have a hard time crushing it anyway.

You’re probably not going to have a problem with those though because Enteric coating is super sweet and capsules are usually neutral in flavor, so there’s not much reason to try and hide the bitterness. For everything else there’s no real functional difference between a smashed pill and a whole pill in your stomach.

Former pharmacy tech here, 8 years compounding pharmacy.

Get a mortar and pestle, crush it up and put it in whatever.

If not then use yogurt or something gooey.

I think I remember a site like that existing in the 2010s, where you had to apply to join and it only let in equal numbers of genders.

It was the 2010s so the waiting list for dudes joining was way longer than the one for women. It was like trying to get in a dance club.

How do you do this with a tablet? Can you buy like a wheel sensor or something?

This is why I think eventually FSR will win over DLSS in the end, despite DLSS having better performance.

For the usability of the clock, likely nothing.

I did mention In another comment that there are a number of advantages a round clockface provides to the creation of the clock, however.

Yea that’s kind of what I was thinking when I said eventually handwriting will go the same way.

If people never encounter it and do all their writing on keyboards, it’ll eventually be a useless skill as well.

From a practicality standpoint, a round clockface is easier to create a mechanical drive system for.

You can create a digital mechanical face (see: Flipboard style numerical displays) but they usually require more gears and are more susceptible to wear and tear than the gears of a round clock face.

The simplest designs for mechanical digital displays actually just take 24 hour and 60 minute/second circular displays and hide the other numerals as the clock face spins around. Technically this I suppose counts as both analog and digital?

Example:

As for electronic displays? Nah not much of a reason to use a round display unless again, you have an electric-mechanical drive and want to save on gears and parts.