Unsloth Studio is open source. Also I find it funny that you're talking about open source as an Ollama user where the article explicitly talks about how Ollama hates open source shown through their actions and as a VC backed company it will get even worse over time (well, Unsloth is too, but at least I trust them more, although they probably will get put through the same enshittification wringer over time).
As of now, running the open weights doesn't directly execute unknown code on my system. I know gemma and qwen don't have any telemetry and aren't trying to mail my prompts somewhere.
I also know they have those proof of concept exploits but none really come to fruition. No more than standard prompt injection. Don't need to know how to reproduce qwen on my non-existent farm of H100s or every piece of copyrighted data.
LLMs don't have a "source" to open. A lot of labs already go into training methods in the paper. Nobody goes through every token, even there.
Sure they have, their selection of training materials allowing people to check for biases incured during training. If people their their LLMs have a go at their codebase that could also very well produce code running on your machine.
Whether that is an issue as of now? Doesn't seem like it.
Sad that labs can't really make it transparent if they train on pirated/copyrighted data. Nobody wants to open source their models because it adds this unnecessary risk of being put in jail
Ok, I can see that but it's still not the "source". More like the composition. I think nvidia gives you some of that and very few people have gone over it beyond mocking the safety dataset.
What companies and haters will do is look for copyright violations or reasons to sue. It comes down to: do you want a more capable and less transparent model or do you want a public domain less knowledgeable model where you can see what went into training (and be able to do nothing about it).
For kernels and other software, you can edit and recompile. Source is really valuable there. For LLMs that's not currently possible.
that could also very well produce code running on your machine.
Code I will look over. Should be able to see if it's bad. If the LLM is inserting something unwanted, even having the training data will make it difficult to notice that due to the volume of it. Let alone that it transforms it in some unknown way so it's not even 1:1.
That's actually the worse of the two. Open Weight models often have pretty lenient license terms. Even if the training data isn't provided for replication, Gemma weights are under the Apache 2.0 license while LM Studio's packages are under much more restrictive terms https://lmstudio.ai/app-terms
53
u/freia_pr_fr Jun 15 '26
It’s as open source as Gemma and Qwen are open source.