No, I would argue that from the three main ingredients - training data, model source code and weights - weights are the furthest away from something akin to source code.
They're more like obfuscated binaries. When it comes to fine-tuning only however things shift a little bit, yes.
I mean the actual point of the article is to ask everyone, not just "well-known" examples.
So it seems there were some reasonably forces in the discussion that align with my stance without the unnecessarily antagonistic (and rhetoric) primer I should've probably left out.
Seems like a good approach to widen the discussion and improve the design.
"Others are questioning whether or not this kind of layout is needed on the web at all — they aren’t sure that well-known websites will use it."
Would it instead be possible to exclude anyone with that attitude from a discussion about an open standard? I know this sounds toxic, but I would argue that approaching public design this way is ultimately more toxic wrt the outcome and those affected by it.
Or maybe I misunderstood that part since everyone seems to not be bothered by it at all here...
They're more like obfuscated binaries. When it comes to fine-tuning only however things shift a little bit, yes.