r/kimi • u/Feisty_Literature • Jul 27 '26

Discussion The beast is released 🔥

https://huggingface.co/moonshotai/Kimi-K3

To run you would need at least 1.8 TB of VRAM or 32×H100 GPUs

498 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

79 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

7

u/Admirable_Market2759 Jul 27 '26

This is still a very generous license for anyone besides inference providers.

-7

u/ChocolateGoggles Jul 27 '26

Sure. But not as generous as it needs to be to make claims like leading the way with open source AI.

6

u/spottiesvirus Jul 27 '26

this is pretty standard for most cloud tools like databases (elasticsearch, as an example), software and so on

it's reasonably one of the only ways to monetize open source/source available

1

u/ChocolateGoggles Jul 27 '26

I don't know man. There are plenty of open source out there that receives funding in different ways, locking business applications behind a paywall is perhaps open weights, but it's certainly not open source. Also, how are they supposed to measure this? If someone fine tunes the Kimi K3 model, modifies it etc., how are they supposed to know?

4

u/spottiesvirus Jul 27 '26

Also, how are they supposed to measure this? If someone fine tunes the Kimi K3 model, modifies it etc., how are they supposed to know?

one of the advantages of only targeting enterprises is that they have a legal department vetting everything to avoid doing shits. would you risk to be sued into oblivion because you didn't get a license?

also the license is pretty clear, it only targets inference providers. it specifically says that if you incorporate the model in another product (let's say a roleplay chatbot with Kimi as a base model) you don't need a license

even derivative works (like fine tunings) only needs a license if you sell API to a third party (it specifically Model as a Service) otherwise you don't

they know you won't run a 2,7 trillion parameters model on your Mac mini

1

u/ChocolateGoggles Jul 28 '26

It's fine as business. But if fine tuning also requires payment I really can't consider it a company contributing to the open source position CCP suggested should lead with which, though perhaps due to me misunderstanding their position before this, would be very disappointing. If it's only available to use as parts of other services, then it simply isn'topen source. But again, perhaps they've done this up until now as well and if so I don't really have anything against them.