Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-07-04 Thread Vagrant Cascadian
On 2023-07-04, zamfofex wrote: >> On 07/03/2023 6:39 AM -03 Simon Tournier wrote: >> >> Well, I do not see any difference between pre-trained weights and icons >> or sound or good fitted-parameters (e.g., the package >> python-scikit-learn has a lot ;-)). As I said elsewhere, I do not see >>

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-07-04 Thread zamfofex
> On 07/03/2023 6:39 AM -03 Simon Tournier wrote: > > Well, I do not see any difference between pre-trained weights and icons > or sound or good fitted-parameters (e.g., the package > python-scikit-learn has a lot ;-)). As I said elsewhere, I do not see > the difference between pre-trained

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-07-03 Thread Simon Tournier
Hi, On Sun, 02 Jul 2023 at 21:51, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Someone™ has to invest time in studying this specific case, look at what > others like Debian are doing, and seek consensus on a way forward. Hum, I am probably not this Someone™ but here the result of my looks. :-) First, please

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-07-02 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Simon Tournier skribis: > Somehow, if we do not have guidelines for helping in deciding, it makes > harder the review of #63088 [1] asking the inclusion of lc0 or it makes > hard to know what to do about GNU Backgamon. > > On these specific cases, what do we do? :-) Someone™ has to invest

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-05-30 Thread Simon Tournier
Hi Ludo, On ven., 26 mai 2023 at 17:37, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Well, I do not know if we have reached a conclusion. From my point of >> view, both can be included *if* their licenses are compatible with Free >> Software – included the weights (pre-trained model) as licensed data. > > We

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-05-28 Thread zamfofex
> To me, there is no doubt that neural networks are a threat to user > autonomy: hard to train by yourself without very expensive hardware, > next to impossible without proprietary software, plus you need that huge > amount of data available to begin with. > > As a project, we don’t have

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-05-26 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hello, Simon Tournier skribis: > On sam., 13 mai 2023 at 12:13, 宋文武 wrote: > >> Hello, zamfofex submited a package 'lc0', Leela Chess Zero” (a chess >> engine) with ML model, also it turn out that we already had 'stockfish' >> a similiar one with pre-trained model packaged. Does we reached a

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-05-15 Thread Simon Tournier
Hi, On sam., 13 mai 2023 at 12:13, 宋文武 wrote: > Hello, zamfofex submited a package 'lc0', Leela Chess Zero” (a chess > engine) with ML model, also it turn out that we already had 'stockfish' > a similiar one with pre-trained model packaged. Does we reached a > conclusion (so lc0 can also be

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-05-12 Thread 宋文武
Simon Tournier writes: > Since it is computing, we could ask about the bootstrap of such > generated data. I think it is a slippery slope because it is totally > not affordable to re-train for many cases: (1) we would not have the > hardware resources from a practical point of view,, (2) it is

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-04-12 Thread Csepp
Nathan Dehnel writes: > a) Bit-identical re-train of ML models is similar to #2; other said > that bit-identical re-training of ML model weights does not protect > much against biased training. The only protection against biased > training is by human expertise. > > Yeah, I

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-04-11 Thread Nathan Dehnel
a) Bit-identical re-train of ML models is similar to #2; other said that bit-identical re-training of ML model weights does not protect much against biased training. The only protection against biased training is by human expertise. Yeah, I didn't mean to give the impression that I

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-04-11 Thread Simon Tournier
Hi Nathan, Maybe there is a misunderstanding. :-) The subject is “Guideline for pre-trained ML model weight binaries”. My opinion on such guideline would to only consider the license of such data. Other considerations appear to me hard to be conclusive. What I am trying to express is that:

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-04-08 Thread Nathan Dehnel
>From my point of view, the tackle of such biased weights is not via re-learning because how to draw the line between biased weights, mistakes on their side, mistakes on our side, etc. and it requires a high level of expertise to complete a full re-learning. This strikes me as similar to being in

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-04-07 Thread Simon Tournier
Hi, On ven., 07 avril 2023 at 00:50, Nathan Dehnel wrote: > I am uncomfortable with including ML models without their training > data available. It is possible to hide backdoors in them. > https://www.quantamagazine.org/cryptographers-show-how-to-hide-invisible-backdoors-in-ai-20230302/ Thanks

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-04-06 Thread Simon Tournier
Hi, On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 15:41, Kyle wrote: > I have only seen situations where the optimization is "too entailed with > randomness" when models are trained on proprietary GPUs with specific > settings. Otherwise, pseudo-random seeds are perfectly sufficient to remove > the indeterminism.

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-04-06 Thread Kyle
>Since it is computing, we could ask about the bootstrap of such >generated data. I think it is a slippery slope because it is totally >not affordable to re-train for many cases: (1) we would not have the >hardware resources from a practical point of view,, (2) it is almost >impossible to

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-04-06 Thread Simon Tournier
Hi, On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 at 18:07, Ryan Prior wrote: > Hi there FSF Licensing! (CC: Guix devel, Nicholas Graves) This morning > I read through the FSDG to see if it gives any guidance on when > machine learning model weights are appropriate for inclusion in a free > system. It does not seem to

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-04-03 Thread Jack Hill
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023, Nicolas Graves via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution. wrote: Just to be precise on llama, what I proposed was to include the port of Facebook code to CPP, (llama.cpp, see ticket 62443 on guix-patches), which itself has a license. The weight

Re: Guidelines for pre-trained ML model weight binaries (Was re: Where should we put machine learning model parameters?)

2023-04-03 Thread Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.
On 2023-04-03 18:07, Ryan Prior wrote: > Hi there FSF Licensing! (CC: Guix devel, Nicholas Graves) This morning I read > through the FSDG to see if it gives any guidance on when machine learning > model weights are appropriate for inclusion in a free system. It does not > seem to offer much. >