Lauren:
What kind of hardware should WMCS buy to support such a project?
I can't comment on the hardware requirements, but I would note that in addition to the llama.cpp repository (https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp), which currently focuses on LLaMA/Alpaca, there are other efforts to reduce the computational requirements for running LLMs. https://github.com/NolanoOrg/cformers looks promising and supports many of the open models. Fabrice Bellard of FFmpeg fame was one of the first implementers of a highly optimized LLM at https://textsynth.com/; sadly much of the work is proprietary (there is a binary-only distribution for CPU under MIT license).
https://textsynth.com/playground.html remains one of the most accessible ways to explore the performance of the open models with only a rate limitation, and no requirement to purchase credits.
I disagree, which is why I have been pushing RARR and ROME.
That approach does look promising, thanks for continuing to point it out. The publicly available implementations I've seen of citing sources (Google/Microsoft/You.com/character.ai) still hallucinate heavily and attribute claims to the sources that they don't make, but if an LLM can be steered to cite reliable sources and not fabricate information that isn't in the sources, that would be a huge win!
Chris:
However, not clicking a button to indicate acceptance of terms and conditions does not mean I can do whatever I want. It means that I either have to find other evidence of an explicit licence (maybe text on the document?), or consider whether there is an implicit licence or exemption. An implicit licence might well exist but is qite likely to be minimal in scope.
I broadly agree with your reasoning. My core argument is that using a software license to restrict "ethical use", without requiring clickthrough agreements, is either unenforceable in many cases, or it is enforceable only in a manner that otherwise hollows out consumer rights. That's because it is a _reasonable expectation_ that, at the very least, if you give me a piece of software without any obvious restrictions attached to it, I can run that piece of software (by virtue of implied license, exemption, or both).
In my view, a fundamental goal of free licenses is to expand and protect user rights for covered works. Both the GPL and CC-BY-SA make it explicit that none of their provisions are intended to limit fair use / fair dealing, and as previously noted, the GPL even says explicitly that you can receive and run GPL software without accepting the GPL itself.
To fully enforce the "ethical use" provisions of OpenRail-M (which are the raison d'être for the license) requires the licensor to argue that, if you legally obtained a copy from them without ever seeing the license, you are not permitted to run the software. That is a user-hostile, bait-and-switch approach to software licensing, regardless of whether the courts ultimately uphold it.
I suspect it may never be tested, because most organizations that adopt these licenses do so as a matter of reputational risk mitigation, not with actual intent to enforce these provisions -- which would be often be very impractical for other reasons (identifying the bad actor, proving that the model was used, etc.).
Warmly, Erik