this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2026
697 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

89355 readers
3167 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
697
Anthropic's Claude AI blocks video game cloning and reverse-engineering — sweeping new restrictions also hit legitimate developers and basic troubleshooting tasks. (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 1 day ago by eicker@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
157 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anamethatisnt@sopuli.xyz 10 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

While I agree that open-weight is better than nothing, it is not the same as open-source.
Having a truly open-source model would be wonderful and it would also allow us to verify what data it is trained on and whether it has the right to use that data.

The Open Source Initiative's definition of a fully open-source AI model includes the training data as a key element. Some developers wonder, however, how feasible it is to distribute the enormous datasets required.

He says Stanford HAI has staked out a specific bar: alignment with the Linux Foundation’s Model Openness Framework at its top tier, the “Open Science” class – meaning the code, the training data (or a thoroughly documented, auditable account of it), and the tooling are all released, not just the weights, alongside a real way for outside researchers and communities to download, run, study, contribute to, and modify the work. Anything short of that, in his view, forecloses entire lines of research: You can’t, for example, study how a model’s training data shapes its cultural assumptions, audit it for how fairly it represents different populations, or test new architectures at the scale where genuinely new behavior shows up. You can only observe a finished system from the outside and guess at why it does what it does.

[–] fuck_u_spez_in_particular@lemmy.world -1 points 16 hours ago

Right I agree, but this is basically the entire internet (and more, like scanned books), what it is trained on. They are using reinforcement learning now. And this is also one of the reasons why they have escaped the sandboxes in the American models for example.

So you can probably safely assume that they are trained on all data that is available easily. and very likely also artificially generated data at this point. How long they are trained on, what kind of data is a different story. I think it gets increasingly more interesting how these models are trained.

So while I agree it would be really nice to know exactly what it is trained on and how it is trained on that, I think that those that have the resources to get at least close to frontier models (i.e. AI companies) don't just open up on that, sadly.