- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
[… Lumo] is the least open “open” AI assistant that we have ever added to our index. One of our reasons for inclusion is an openness claim: a model provider that calls their system “open” or “open source” or a variation on that. Lumo is “open” in that sense (Proton calls it open source) but in no other way. Nothing about it is currently open. […]
At the moment I have been pretty satisfied with the LLMs that Kagi is offering in their standard their for my low requirement queries. Supposedly most of the apis they use are too alternative servers that host instances of the models, some claiming they don’t use your data. I am not aware to what extend open source is serviced in those models, but I have little interest in Lumo for the time being. Can someone explain to me why open source matters for LLMs?
LLM are becomming widely used and whoever controll the LLM training control people lives to some extends. It’s crazy how people are relying more and more on ChatGPT for conveniance, some even think it is actually intelligent/smart (it is not). LLM have biais because training data and training recipes are not neutral. Governments and big corpos can use this to extend control and manipulate/influence opinion, behavior, etc… They can choose how and what to censor, the point of view of information that could change user perception of it. With closed data and training recipe we can not see how it is made and what rules the models have been following.
Most open source model only publish the finally wieght model. No training data (mainly because they violate IP, copyright, etc… if you ask me) nor the training recipe, so you only have the possibility to host the model yourself. They slap Open Source on it and voilà… but it often isn’t and when it is you can see that it perform worse (because they haven’t read all Sci-Hub and Z-Library unlike Llama and ChatGPT for exemple.
Edit : Clarify some sentences