I continue to find Mark impressive. I think there's something quite true about the "trying to create God" remark.
Zuckerberg disses closed-source AI competitors as trying to 'create God'
11–20 of 64 posts
Re: Zuckerberg disses closed-source AI competitors as trying to 'create God'
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't his also closed src?
seriously? meta llm's are on huggingface and you can download and run them on your machine along with the weights
Open source != open weights != open training set.
Of course, GP is ignoring that Meta is far more open than its direct competitors (MSFT, GOOG, OpenAI).
Re: Zuckerberg disses closed-source AI competitors as trying to 'create God'
#13Re: Zuckerberg disses closed-source AI competitors as trying to 'create God'
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't his also closed src?
seriously? meta llm's are on huggingface and you can download and run them on your machine along with the weights
just putting weights on hug is not enough for a model to be open. it is like sharing the binaries of a software.
they should put their entire code on github and show how it was trained, architecture and everything else.
also, the most important thing about a model is not it's architecture, but the dataset it was trained on. that is the "it" in a model.
Re: Zuckerberg disses closed-source AI competitors as trying to 'create God'
#15We are getting closer and closer to several anime timelines.
We are not. Would be cool though in some aspects!
Re: Zuckerberg disses closed-source AI competitors as trying to 'create God'
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
seriously? meta llm's are on huggingface and you can download and run them on your machine along with the weights
just putting weights on hug is not enough for a model to be open. it is like sharing the binaries of a software. they should put their entire code on github and show how it was trained, architecture and everything else. also, the most important thing about a model is not it's architecture, but the dataset it was trained on. that is the "it" in a model.
The preferred form for modifying an ML model is the weights.
Re: Zuckerberg disses closed-source AI competitors as trying to 'create God'
#17Because Zuck's AI is so open
Wait, but... it is.
Am I missing something, or inferring sarcasm where there is none?
Re: Zuckerberg disses closed-source AI competitors as trying to 'create God'
#18I continue to find Mark impressive. I think there's something quite true about the "trying to create God" remark.
From a cynical atheist point of view he's not wrong:
- god is an imaginary construct used to rationalize data points
- god is often used by humans to make decisions, whether backed or not by data
- god is overhyped
substitute "god" with "AI"
Re: Zuckerberg disses closed-source AI competitors as trying to 'create God'
#19I would agree. AI is the machine god realized. Not by virtue of its capabilities, but by the agency people hand off to it. Whether it be creative tasks or just planning their activities, I see more people rely on AI for more decisions. They don’t want to think about something, so they have an AI choose for them. One could argue Top 10 lists and Guides already did this, but for those it was limited to certain aspects and tailored by a human. People are so afraid of making the wrong choice, they would rather not make one at all. LLMs in particular are ready and eager to make a choice for you about almost anything.
Re: Zuckerberg disses closed-source AI competitors as trying to 'create God'
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
seriously? meta llm's are on huggingface and you can download and run them on your machine along with the weights
just putting weights on hug is not enough for a model to be open. it is like sharing the binaries of a software. they should put their entire code on github and show how it was trained, architecture and everything else. also, the most important thing about a model is not it's architecture, but the dataset it was trained on. that is the "it" in a model.
I am not sure why people keep pretending like this is possible or keep asking it to happen.
You know that distributing all the data would be illegal copyright infringement, right? Also, its not like they could distribute the (petabytes?) worth of data to every rando who asks.
Do you just not want open weight models to exist, and you are using a fake call for it to be more open, so as to get this stuff all shut down, or what?
Because anyone who actually supports open "anything" would understand this, instead of pedantically arguing about the definition of open source and by suggesting things that both aren't possible and would make the release of these models much less likely.