131–140 of 362 posts
Why open source it? Just another virtue signal while their real motivation is something more sinister? They are a for-profit publicly owned company. Are investors happy about spending billions to open-source it?
As a show of good faith, they should open up Messenger to support interoperable open standards without needing to use various self-hosted bridges on the likes of Matrix.
I spend a lot of my life very much hoping for things like that, but I’m increasingly wondering how not having a central server makes it impossible to be interoperable, successful, and spam-proof. Having “AGI” —or at least a very convincing conversation agent— isn’t helping much.
Another idea that interests me is whitelist-prioritized communications for stuff like IM, and phone calls from the PSTN. If someone isn't in my address book, they shouldn't be able to get through as easily (not saying block them completely, that sounds like a disaster).
It's funny, so much hype and emphasis on things like AGI and crypto, but the problems we should solve first and foremost aren't anywhere near as sexy or lucrative. Profitable shareholder driven biz are usually by their very nature never going to chase these types of problems.
The actual quote: > "Our long term vision is to build general intelligence, open source it responsibly, and make it widely available so everyone can benefit." "responsibly" is a pretty important word there that the hn title leaves out. I'm not really sure how that would be possible with a true general intelligence give the alignment problem - it's not really clear to me there's any responsible way to build a true gen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spend a lot of my life very much hoping for things like that, but I’m increasingly wondering how not having a central server makes it impossible to be interoperable, successful, and spam-proof. Having “AGI” —or at least a very convincing conversation agent— isn’t helping much.
Spam is an inevitability on any system. Matrix gets spam, Facebook Messenger gets spam, email gets spam. Where there's people, there's always going to be spam. I even get spam on Xbox Live messages, beginning years ago! Another idea that interests me is whitelist-prioritized communications for stuff like IM, and phone calls from the PSTN. If someone isn't in my address book, they shouldn't be able to get through as e…
The actual quote: > "Our long term vision is to build general intelligence, open source it responsibly, and make it widely available so everyone can benefit." "responsibly" is a pretty important word there that the hn title leaves out. I'm not really sure how that would be possible with a true general intelligence give the alignment problem - it's not really clear to me there's any responsible way to build a true gen…
I am a general intelligence, with the knowledge of the internet at my fingertips, and I am not particularly dangerous.
1. having to pay out the nose for licensing/SAAS of the winning tech vs shipping a noticeably worse second rate in-house product
2. Struggling to compete with the winning company for hiring, assuming the winning company makes a ton of money at high margins and can outbid Meta.
3. Having to continue building “applications” products on other companies’ platforms, something Zuck has repeatedly noted as a problem and is a major motivation for their investments in VE.
Also, they’d have a hard time commercializing the current iteration of AI products given their current products and business relations anyway. Even if they “won” in terms of superior tech they’d be in one of the worst starting positions for actually making money off it, given their lack of enterprise SAAS business customers, the potential negative impact on existing product lines in consumers’ hands, (what I expect to be) advertisers’ relative indifference to genAI, and being generally considered less trustworthy than most other big tech companies and so less able to pivot to enterprise software.
So for them the strategy that makes the most sense is to open source really good, but not cutting edge, AI for others to build on top of it. It probably costs a lot less to play permanent catch up because they can let others make the big investments in speculative research and don’t have to pay for the absolute top experts. Then by open sourcing it they make it harder for OpenAI and Google to commercialize their offerings at high costs, as many companies will build off Meta’s tech for more control, and what customers they do get will be constantly deciding if what they’re paying for is worth a slightly-worse but cheaper open source alternative.
This also allows Meta to more easily influence the AI applications space despite having less capable models, and make it easier for 3P commercializations to take off rather than ceding everything to OpenAI/Google potentially going all in on 1P, which would be greatly beneficial if Meta ever were to own a platform that benefits from GenAI (cough cough the metaverse).
It’s smart but transparently obvious because like, it’s Meta lol, they don’t spend this kind of money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Can someone provide insight into why there's so much insistence from business that magic happens at scale with LLMs? We're a long way from AGI. The lack of meaningful details in these announcements makes me pessimistic.
My money has been on Meta for AGI since they started training people to label data for them (tag your friends!) Between all their properties they have more instrumentation on humans, collecting human behavior trajectories and state action pairs transfer learning and inverse RL than anyone - and it’s not even a close second Specifically and critically I think they likely have the largest egocentric multimodal labeled…
Ever since then, I've asked friends and family not to upload pictures of me to Facebook, with the natural amount of awkwardness and eye-rolling that request evoked.
I assume my friends continued to add me to Facebook without telling me about it, just as I assume that deleting my Facebook account did not actually remove me as a uniquely identified individual in their system. But, what am I supposed to do, just silently assent? Turns out, we're not the product, we're further back on the chain. We're more like ingredients that can be used and reused to create an infinite variety of different products.