Comment by amarant
3 hours ago
But that's just the thing with open weights: you're not doing any business with company that made the model. They might publish the weights to a, say, European host, and then you download the model from Europe and and run it on your servers in America, and suddenly it's very hard to tell where the model was originally created.
Companies, where OpenAI and Anthropic make much if not most of their revenue, will not risk it. You're thinking like an engineer not a business person, risk is fundamental to their calculus. They'll instead just use known provenance models like GPT or Claude, entrenching these companies further.
Yep, add a few blank layers, fine tune it a tiny bit and the weight checksums nor parameter counts won't match with anything, while the model will be practically the exact same. Time and time again random startups have tried passing established open models as their own.
"You made this? I made this."
Of course a conspicuous architecture would still give it away.
someone can run tests and see that models output exactly the same results, and then you are open to criminal investigation.
On something that is inherently non-deterministic? Something which is also to a great extent distilled from other frontier models, meaning it has the possibility to generate similar outputs to those meaning that just pattern detection might also not be as effective? Easier to ban everything that’s open, than try to figure out which one of them is Chinese
6 replies →
Many of these models will report that they are Claude. It’s going to be difficult to overcome reasonable doubt.
Models don't even agree with themselves in terms of returning identical results
Except that even the exact same model won't output the exact same results, that's a fundamental aspect of how LLMs work. They're probabilistic/stochastic, not deterministic.
2 replies →