I agree that they should say "open weight" instead of "open source" when that's what they mean, but it might take some time for people to understand that it's not the same thing exactly and we should allow some slack for that.
no. truly open source models are wonderful and remarkable things that truly move the needle in education, understanding, distributed collaboration and the advancement of the state of the art. redefinition of the terminology reduces incentive to strive for the wonderful goal that they represent.
There is a big difference between open source for something like the linux kernel or gcc where anyone with a home PC can build it, and any non-trivial LLM where it takes cloud compute and costs a lot to train it. No hobbyist or educational institution is going to be paying for million dollar training runs, probably not even thousand dollar ones.
"too big to share." nope. sharing the finished soup base, even if well suited for inclusion in other recipes, is still different from sharing the complete recipe. sharing the complete recipe encourages innovation in soup bases, including bringing the cost down for making them from scratch.
There is an enormous amount of information in the public domain about building models. In fact, once you get into the weeds you'll realize there is too much and in many cases (not all, but many) the very specific way something was done or what framework they used or what hardware configuration they had was just a function of what they have or have experience with etc. One could spend a lifetime just trying to repro olmo's work or a lot of the huggingface stuff....
