> We call AI models "open source" if you can download the binary and not the source.

Who's "we"? There's been quite a lot of pushback on this naming scheme from the OSS community, with many preferring the term "open weights".

>We call AI models "open source" if you can download the binary and not the source. Why not programs?

the weights of a model aren't equivalent to the binary output of source code, no matter how you try to stretch the metaphor.

>why not

because we aren't beholden to change all definitions and concepts because some guy at some corp said so.

Binaries and AI models can be inscrutable. They're meant to be interpreted by machines.

We want human readable, comprehensible, reproducible and maintainable sources at minimum when we say open source.

North Korea is called a “democratic people's republic”. Just because one thing that really isn't <whatever> is called <whatever> by the people in coontrol of it, doesn't mean that it is or that incorrectly calling other things <whatever> is correct.