Comment by fastball
4 days ago
Why can't you improve it or fit it to your data?
This can be cross-compiled/ported in the Linux analogy. The Linux analogy would be more like: a kernel dev wrote code for some part of the Linux kernel using JetBrains' CLion. He used features of CLion that made this process much easer than if he had written the code using `nano`. By your logic, the resulting kernel code is not "open" because the tooling used to create it is not open. This is, of course, nonsense.
I agree that the project as a whole is less open than it could be, but the weights are indeed as open as they can be, no scare quotes required.
I really don't think your analogy fits the absurdity of lacking the tooling. It's more like you have to decompile an N64 cartridge ROM and don't have the tools. But I don't want to play that game.
I'll up the ante. I'll bet you money that nobody forks this and adds fine tuning for at least a year.
Someone already did: https://github.com/stlohrey/chatterbox-finetuning
And someone else fine-tuned it for German: https://huggingface.co/SebastianBodza/Kartoffelbox-v0.1
You're supposed to wait to post this until I agree to the bet ;)
1 reply →