# Report from BLOOM working group

**URL:** <https://discuss.opensource.org/t/report-from-bloom-working-group/243>\
**Category:** Open Source AI\
**Tags:** process\
**Created:** [February 29, 2024, 6:32pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/report-from-bloom-working-group/243 "2024-02-29T18:32:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mer](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/discuss.opensource.org/mer/32/102_2.png) [@Mer](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/Mer)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 11:51pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/report-from-bloom-working-group/243/3 "2024-03-04T23:51:22Z")

</div>

Hi Aspie96 👋 All the systems we analyzed are self-described as open, which includes BLOOM. In answer to your second question, we did initially intend to review Mistral, though it’s not part of the initial cohort. One of the decisions we need to make now is whether analyzing additional systems, such as Mistral, is required to enrich the working group recommendations based on that initial cohort, which I posted on Friday: [Report on working group recommendations](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/report-on-working-group-recommendations/247).

> **[BLOOM](https://bigscience.huggingface.co/blog/bloom)**
>
> Our 176B parameter language model is here.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/report-from-bloom-working-group/243)._