Hi, your "truly open" model is "gated" on Huggingface, restricting downloads unless we agree to "hold you harmless" and share our contact info. Can you fix this please, either by removing the restriction, or removing the "truly open" claim?
We hear you, nevertheless this is one of the very few open-weights and open-data LLMs, and the license is still very permissive (compare for example to Llama). Personally of course I'd like to remove the additional click, but the universities also have a say in this.
In the US, many state governments have anti-indemnify laws that restrict the state government agencies (including state universities) from agreeing to contracts and agreements with such language. I'd love to make this available to researchers at my university, but I'm not sure I can click through such an agreement (similar problems exist with other LLMs).
It is Apache 2 and I don't see anything that prohibits another contracting party from agreeing to the Apertus LLM Acceptable Use Policy and redistributing with just Apache 2 and without the AUP. Maybe this provides a solution? Unless I'm missing something?
Ok so why keep calling it "truly open" then? It's an obvious lie and nobody is forcing you to say it. It benefits your marketing, sure, but it harms everyone else by diluting the meaning of the term "open". So stop doing that please.
Curiosity and interesting questions won't have any future in the trump world. So yes, this is very relevant to the HN community. Doing nothing is also a choice which has consequences.
I am pretty sure india is taking more steps than USA. you cannot blame them anymore. They are even pushing more money into nuclear and created a breeder reactor.
You would be wrong. The IRA is projected to remove a California-sized block of US emissions by 2030. The IRA is the single strongest climate action tried by any country since the Paris Accords.
It's a graph that shows a steady and consistent increase in atmospheric CO2 for the last 40 years regardless of the elected political party in the US at the time.
In other words, it seems to indicate pretty strongly that no matter how you vote, climate change is going to destroy us.
Climate change was barely a political issue this cycle because China is the runaway leader renewable energy tech (solar, batteries) and the Biden Admin SANCTIONED them for it.
It's difficult for many people in America to accept that the "climate change" narrative is primarily a propaganda tool and wedge issue to rally votes, and that the DNC doesn't actually care about "solving" it. Just like abortion.
Two things are true: climate change and reproductive rights are genuine issues, and they are also weaponized for political nonsense. People need to be away more skeptical around these debates and stop getting so angry/depressed about them (which is the goal of those groups trying to manipulate you through powerful emotions).
> Until China and India take steps to decarbonize their economies as opposed to making empty pledges we all know will never be met, then whatever the U.S. or the rest of the West does will not matter.
This is such a bullshit way of thinking. No one snowflake feels responsible for the avalanche. "But China…", "But India…" is not an excuse for not giving a shit. I hear the same arguments over here in Germany, and they're usually coming from the "I don't want to change" crowd.
> you have to get everyone to cut as much as they can
But the point being made isn't to emphasize the importance of everyone collaborating on cutting emissions. The point being made is that we may as well not cut back because someone else might not. It's especially disingenuous to bring up India when they emit less than the US does (and especially on a per-capita basis).
Well then, the good news is Trump has the guy more responsible for electrifying American cars (a major contributor to CO2 emissions) than anyone else on his team.
Also the state that has more renewables than any other state voted for Trump.
Are you referring to Elon Musk? He also torpedoed a mass transit project in California and built the stupidest version of a train ever conceived in Las Vegas. It's not clear that Elon Musk has a good sense for efficient means to reduce climate harming activity - just that he wants, and is good at getting, government money for his projects.
> It's not clear that Elon Musk has a good sense for efficient means to reduce climate harming activity
I think that this is one of the most incorrect, and, what’s more, plainly and obviously incorrect things I’ve ever read. I am almost at a loss for words when I read it.
Are we going to pretend that people would have adopted EVs anyway in the west without Tesla? Did you think we would just abandon the entire western auto manufacturing infrastructure and start driving BYDs? Did you forget what the auto industry looked like before (and during, in the early years) Tesla?
This is like saying that he doesn’t have a good sense for building orbital rockets. The guy has basically only done two big and meaningful things with his life and attacking the #1 carbon emission source is the bigger of the two.
> Are we going to pretend that people would have adopted EVs anyway in the west without Tesla?
EVs are growing, and will continue to grow, for reasons unrelated to climate.
They are the superior product in nearly every way. Regenerative braking is a huge objective improvement. The acceleration and torque control is a huge improvement. The lack of maintenance is a huge improvement.
The only downside of EVs is range and charge time, and both of those are being actively improved.
Elon deserves some credit for joining on to Tesla in 2004, long before these benefits were clear, and for being at the first company to really demonstrate these benefits in reality with the Roadster in 2008. But I do not think the existence of Tesla accelerated the adoption of EVs by more than a couple years.
The Model S was released in 2012. The Nissan Leaf was released in 2010.
Improved private cars, electric or otherwise, are an unserious solution to climate change or a sustainable future. Simple geometry makes this obvious - they're quite literally the worst solution to moving many people. If I asked someone, "move ten thousand people ten kilometers," and they came back with "I will put each one in a 2x2 meter box with four seats, but only one will be occupied by a person. The box needs to be stored at the origin and destination, and independently operated by every single person," how could I do anything but laugh them out of the room? Addendum: "by the way, the infrastructure to sustain this means the box is required for trips of all lengths greater than 1.5 kilometers, and sometimes even less!"
Attacking cars as a carbon emission source would not mean killing an HSR project on purpose. It would mean building public transit.
Anyway EVs aren't special. Every major car manufacturer has them now, and the PRC makes shitloads too. Elon Musk probably beat the market, but it's not like his designs were genius - they lacked critical, simple safety features for example. Need I truck out the stories of people slicing their hands open on the cybertruck frame?
As for orbital rockets, that doesn't really have anything to do with climate change.
The fact that EVs aren’t special, and that every major manufacturer has them now, are almost entirely the result of his hard work. I think a lot of people forgot what the world was like before Tesla. This is sort of like saying “every phone manufacturer makes touch screen phones”. The foregone conclusion that “this is just how phones/cars are now” wasn’t foregone until someone made it that way, at scale, first to show everyone the better way.
Also, I think your idea that cars themselves are the problem is probably incorrect. Decarbonization isn’t primarily about reducing overall energy use per person, although you can possibly deflect with the argument that it requires both that and also clean energy.
In any case, American culture and cities are car culture and cities, and even if you could do the impossible and magically deploy tons of HSR between every metro in the US it wouldn’t make people stop driving. Any solution that requires first rebuilding the whole country and replacing its whole population with people who don’t want to drive a large vehicle to the grocery store is obviously a nonstarter.
Nah the nissan leaf was released about 15 years ago. Electric mobility was a proven use case years before the release of the roadster or model S. It wasn't the paradigm shift that the iPhone was. (and I don't have any doubts we wouldn't have gotten to an iPhone experience a few years later, either. I used smartphones before the iPhone with touchscreens, less smooth and intuitive, but already had miniaturized mobile-first apps based on touch. Android was released a few months after iOS and had been in parallel development for 5 the previous 5 years prior to iOS being unveiled...)
Tesla accelerated the electric car market several years, that's for sure. But nothing more than that.
The most important development for the feasibility of electric cars has not been automotive innovation (not the powertrain, the motor, the wheels, the interior or whatever), but battery innovation.
And battery innovation (i.e. cheaper, lighter, more capacity, better heat management, better durability) has been ongoing regardless of automotive even existing as an industry.
This has been the driving factor for the electrification of cars, not any one car company but the battery industry. Tesla simply was the best first mover.
What do you propose we do about the volcanoes that in a single eruption emit more methane and carbon than human activity does over a span of two centuries?
It's clear that Trump pulled out of the Paris climate accords and famously wants to start up a massive amount of drilling for oil.
Whereas recent democratic cabinets banned certain oil drilling, dedicated the US to the climate accords, installed large subsidy programs including one that prevented Tesla (fully kickstarted the electrification of the entire automotive industry indefinitely) from going bankrupt, and just recently launched the IRA which is the biggest climate change prevention investment ($3 trillion) in the history of the world, prompting the EU to follow with a similar program to compete to attract green investments and innovations.
There is simply a massive policy difference between the two parties here. And showing a graph of world emisions that have kept going up in the decades prior to mainstream climate change awareness, is grossly misleading. For one because it says nothing about US policy. Two because it happened prior significant climate change policy and a divergence between republicans and democrats on this issue. And third because without frontrunner countries there is no way that you can ever overcome the tragedy of the commons issue with climate, because India/China are certainly not going to make investments if the US doesn't and fucks the climate anyway. We can't all use that excuse, certainly not if you're the richest and most innovative country.
Well yes but thats not a binary situation, is it. We can fuck up future of our kids a lot, a lot more or way a lot more. And so on.
Anyway, our descendants will hate current generations for what we have 'achieved' with the only place we can realistically live en masse for next 1000 years at least, almost all in in past 20 years, I'd say rightfully.
But as long as their stocks are up many folks here properly don't give a fuck. Tells you something too, don't put automatic morality into folks just because they have above-average intelligence, selfishness is a very powerful emotion from which none of us is completely immune from.
Everything you say is true. However it's bizarre for me to read you lamenting as if this election somehow had any bearing on that trajectory.
Under a continued Biden regime or a renovated Harris regime the climatic trajectory was similarly in overshoot. Like if you pay attention to what scientists, or even just general NGO representatives are saying... You should know that we are far off the rails.
Id encourage you to read the world meteorological organization's report from just last week; we are no where near what is manageable for a stable and prosperous future for our descendants. The climate has absolutely destabilized and we now have left a dismal future laced with intermittent catastrophe. Our generations greed and myopia means we have also left a momentous task to our descendants who might seek to try and restore the planet to equilibrium. Trump or Harris at the helm --it makes no difference-- the ship is going down.
Future generations will inherit a ruined biosphere, food insecurity, resource wars, etc. Humand can obviously mitigate tha somewhat but there's not a single political entity in the US or perhaps even the West as a whole that is currently engaged in doing so.
Well you are just saying the same what I've reacted to - its all same. I disagree from my limited viewpoint - trump was super eager to open drilling oil in Alaska in natural reserves, downgraded env protections for parks etc.
Environment aint just directly co2 or temperature raises, its everything. And everything is connected.
Just because the ship has sort of sailed it doesnt mean giving up and ignorance is the right course, especially when vuewed on really long term scale
Ultimately I'm not giving up, and I would say being aware of this fact is the opposite of ignorance.
The very first step here is to phase out extraction of fossil fuels. Kamala Harris was not going to even stop fracking, which is by far the most environmentally damaging extraction, let alone phase out drilling.
Basically no state/country nor any politician is going to save us. Currently it's up to regular people to work on building a better world, restoring the biosphere, coming up with ways to adjust our manner of living towards a sustainable course and one that will be resilient to catastrophic climate events and even social upheaval.
Instead it seems a lot of people want to just cast a ballot and then forget about it, but this will be a fundamental lifestyle change, and it's going to involve sacrifice.
No, no it has not. It has been about a multitude of subjects like the oceans and forests and preserving habitats from human interference. Humanity mishandling those has consequences for humans, but that has historically not been the crux of the message.
It has never been about “floating rocks” either, but the life in it, nature as a whole.
There is no other way though. Climate change is not a technical problem, it's political. We've had the tech to fix climate change for long time, we know how to do it, that part is quite easy and obvious, we are just not doing it.
You can't say "other way" when you're comparing to something that isn't a way in the first place.
Climate change absolutely is a technical problem and not a political one. It's about the cause and effect patterns of actual weather phenomena, and has nothing to do with conflict resolution within human societies, or anthropocentric psychosocial rituals.
We don't really have the technology to purposefully engineer macro-scale climate patterns, and we absolutely do not have the technology to secure wide-scale cooperation among vast numbers of people with different value systems and incentive structures. We've never had that.
Science tells us how climate works, technology provides renewable energy, but it's up to politics to do the switch. If we don't, then we will simply run out of time, problem will grow, and then we will get into a dead end where we really won't have the technology to fix it. There was a last chance to do it right around these years, we blew it by two trump presidencies instead. If that isn't politics, then nothing is.
Where do you get the idea that politics has, or has ever had, the ability to do anything of the sort?
> There was a last chance to do it right around these years
You're not getting it. There was never any chance to do it. You might as well be arguing for sacrificing goats or reciting ritual incantations. There is no political solution to climate change, and there never was.
Because there were guard rails in place. Now the Supreme Court has said he can't be prosecuted for official acts and he has a VP in place who is on record as saying he wouldn't have certified an election that Trump legitimately lost.
Things have changed since 2016, go ahead bury your head in the sand about it. Don't come crying to anyone else when the leopard eats your face, though.
To do science, you need to come up with counter-examples. A simple way to get to the truth in this particular case is to come to the town full of electro-sensitive people, and announce that there has been a large EM device secretly installed for a week and see how many of them will suddenly report symptoms, even when there actually wasn't any device installed. Or conversely do install the device and don't announce anything and check if somebody sensed it.
Non-commercial is not open-source, because if the original copyright holder stops maintaining it, nobody else can continue (or has to work like a slave for free). Open-source is about what happens if the original author stops working on it. Open-source gives everyone the license to continue developing it, which obviously means also the ability to get paid. Don't call it open-source if this aspect is missing.
Only the FLUX.1 [schnell] is open-source (Apache2), FLUX.1 [dev] is non-commercial.
There is OpenFLUX.1 which is a fine tune of the FLUX.1-schnell model that has had the distillation trained out of it. OpenFLUX.1 is licensed Apache 2.0. https://huggingface.co/ostris/OpenFLUX.1/
It's based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), which were adopted by the Debian Project to determine what software does, and does not, qualify to be incorporated into the core distribution. (There is a non-free section, it is not considered part of the core distribution.)
> Doesn’t open source mean the source is viewable/inspectable?
According to the OSI definition, you also need a right to modify the source and/or distribute patches.
> I don’t know any closed source apps that let you view the source.
A lot of them do, especially in the open-core space. THe model is called source-available.
If you're selling to enterprises and not gamers, that model makes sense. What stops large enterprises from pirating software is their own lawyers, not DRM.
This is why you can put a lot of strange provisions into enterprise software licenses, even if you have little to no way to enforce these provisions on a purely technical level.
Open source usually means that you are able to modify and redistribute the software in question freely. However between open and closed, there is another class - source-available software. From its wikipedia page:
> Any software is source-available in the broad sense as long its source code is distributed along with it, even if the user has no legal rights to use, share, modify or even compile it.
As I said above: Open-source is about what happens if the original author stops working on it. Having the code viewable/inspectable is a side effect of that - can't sustain a project if all you have are blobs. Famously, Richard Stallman started GNU because he wanted to fix a printer: "Particular incidents that motivated this include a case where an annoying printer couldn't be fixed because the source code was withheld from users." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc...
We already have it, but people aren't willing to use it. Using a real libre system will always be a little harder than using a nice and polished billionaire funded walled garden. For obvious reasons. People just aren't willing to sacrifice even a little bit of comfort for the freedom, so products like Librem or PinePhone get mostly just complaints, comparison with Apple, and current users are ridiculed as nerds or weirdos. We will never have freedom as long as this is the prevailing culture. It's up to us, the customers, the commenters.
Is there even any development happening on Winamp? What would these unpaid workers do? If they can't touch the code, not even test it, then the only thing this repo could serve is reporting bugs, but will anyone fix them?
I feel like this whole release is just a PR stunt to remind us that winamp still exists. They don't actually want any help, nor do they want to give anything to the community. They just want to get into gossip, so the spectacular chaos with releasing certificates and 3rd-party proprietary code actually helps for publicity.
They dumped the prior dev team over a year ago (the ones that added the nft plug-in & fanzone crap) & it is mostly a ploy to get a free dev team as was speculated when the whole "source available" thing got announced 4 months ago (but they seem to have left it to the night before to do anything hence the complete mess that's been going on).
The license was always going to be restrictive & focused on what only benefits them as they would never want any clones, etc to be able to make use of it. Also the terms when I look at it from an ex plug-in dev stance seem to prevent any new / updated plug-ins from being built with the plug-in api headers which afaict would fall under their license & surplanting the prior one (no idea if they've changed the in-file stuff or not as I cannot look at their code to avoid issues with work my own player).
On the other hand, stats supporting the idea that working from office increases productivity are dubious at best, I've seen one which said 10% better productivity, but that could be offset by the lower costs of remote work. Maybe you can provide some research that convinced you otherwise?
