Yes. It just like calling the release of compiled closed binary blobs as 'open source' even when the source of reproducing the compiled output is unavailable.
> If I asked a programmer from OpenAI to modify the model to better support Japanese speakers from Hokkaido, their "preferred form" of the model's source code would include the 680,000 hours of audio used to train the model.
Precisely. These 'users' lifting the model can't do it themselves. You will still be contacting OpenAI for support or to add support for another language and they will be the ones able to modify the model.
> Just don't call it open source.
That is true, it is still closed source and already we are seeing the hype squad already apologising to OpenAI as they 'open sourced' a closed model that you can't modify yourself.
OpenAI is still business as usual and nothing has changed.
> If I asked a programmer from OpenAI to modify the model to better support Japanese speakers from Hokkaido, their "preferred form" of the model's source code would include the 680,000 hours of audio used to train the model.
Precisely. These 'users' lifting the model can't do it themselves. You will still be contacting OpenAI for support or to add support for another language and they will be the ones able to modify the model.
> Just don't call it open source.
That is true, it is still closed source and already we are seeing the hype squad already apologising to OpenAI as they 'open sourced' a closed model that you can't modify yourself.
OpenAI is still business as usual and nothing has changed.