This is almost completely wrong. When peope who work in AI refer to the "model", they are generally referring to the weights. It is the weights which are the most important determinant of how the model performs, and it is the weights that require the most resources to develop. Associated code and other assets are also important, but they not the core asset. The intuitive sense of open sourcing a model therefore typically means releasing the weights under an open licence (ideally along with the training and inference code, data, training info, etc).
I am not making a value judgement on what's the "most important" aspect when comparing the code vs the weights. I am just explaining the terminology as I understand it. Your intuitive sense of open sourcing certainly makes sense to me. I think a lay person would expect to be able to generate content with an "open source ai model" and that wouldn't be possible if only the code was open sourced and not the weights.
If you can show me people who work in AI calling just the weights a "model" then I would happily update my internal definition of the word. I am certainly not an expert in the subject, I am just going off what I've read from the community over the past few years.
While they both might be cited as examples of "virtue ethics" (a modern term and category) Stoicism and Aristotelianism are completely different philosophies.
> The problem is when people claim that they can lose weight without running a calorie deficit.
Of course people can lose weight without running a calorie deficit. It's a commonplace experience nowadays, and absolutely trivial to demonstrate. You can test if for yourself if you are even slightly interested in checking the validity of your theories.
The death of the ridiculous thermodynamic model of human nutrition can't come soon enough.
Initially, the availability issues were fixed by rationing (dreaded food coupons), then by improving production and transport, and finally the Berlin Wall fell, after a short hyperinflation almost everybody can afford basic food and most kinds of produce (except meat) are cheap.
The problem is somewhat flipped now that affluent people overeat or eat fast food due to time pressure.
These are more expensive than produce and basic components (excluding most kinds of meat, still) even including preparation and work required.
Fewer people cook at home, though healthier take out options are quite available in many places. Small restaurants, kinda like old American "greasy spoon" but healthier and more often with disposable cheap packaging and cutlery - big catering is barely competitive. Replacing in many instances previous "milk bars" with both cheap and more gentrified options depending on area.
I think the main difference is how near these are to living and work spaces.
As a resident of the UK, I can state that community care is exactly the same ideologically-driven agenda with exactly the same real-world failings that are being ascribed to the US model. The only difference is that there are still remnants of a benefit system that provide some protection for the least fortunate, although the government is in the process of dismantling those as well.
It's a failure in most of Canada too, every successive provincial government decides to slash it's budget or 'reorganize' community care to the point it's just a weak pill dispensing model with no oversight and thus you get mentally ill in the street at all hours running wild with drug and alcohol addictions.
I think Andrew Yang style UBI is really the only solution, a guaranteed monthly living income that's illegal to take loans against or illegal to withhold because of debts. That or some kind of accountability where we are able to personally sue politicians who have turned our cities into poorly run asylums.
https://huggingface.co/blog/vivien/optimal-lossy-variant-of-...