Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open source AI is the path forward

about.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 936 posts

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#111

Post by gpm »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #86
gpm wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. But I do want to limit the amount we reward NVIDIA for calling the shots correctly to maximize the benefit to society. For instance by reducing the duration of the government granted monopolies on chip technology that is obsolete well before the default duration of 20 years is over. That said, it strikes me that the actual limiting factor is fab capacity not nvidia's designs and we probably need to lift the monop…

> reducing the duration of the government granted monopolies on chip technology that is obsolete well before the default duration of 20 years is over Why do you think these private entities are willing to invest the massive capital it takes to keep the frontier advancing at that rate? > I do want to limit the amount we reward NVIDIA for calling the shots correctly to maximize the benefit to society Why wouldn't NVIDI…

> Why do you think these private entities are willing to invest the massive capital it takes to keep the frontier advancing at that rate?

Because whether they make 100x or 200x they make a shitload of money.

> Why wouldn't NVIDIA be a solid steward of that capital given their track record?

The problem isn't who is the steward of the capital. The problem is that economically efficient thing to do for a single company is (given sufficient fab capacity, and a monopoly) to raise prices to extract a greater share of the pie at the expense of shrinking the size of the pie. I'm not worried about who takes the profit, I'm worried about the size of the pie.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#112

Post by hubraumhugo »

The big winners of this: devs and AI startups

- No more vendor lock-in

- Instead of just wrapping proprietary API endpoints, developers can now integrate AI deeply into their products in a very cost-effective and performant way

- Price race to the bottom with near-instant LLM responses at very low prices are on the horizon

As a founder, it feels like a very exciting time to build a startup as your product automatically becomes better, cheaper, and more scalable with every major AI advancement. This leads to a powerful flywheel effect: https://www.kadoa.com/blog/ai-flywheel

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#113

Post by JumpCrisscross »

diggan wrote: post #107
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the training data is the source Sure. But that's not going to be released. The term open source AI cannot be expected to cover it because it's not practical.

So because it's really hard to do proper Open Source with these LLMs, means we need to change the meaning of Open Source so it fits with these PR releases?

> because it's really hard to do proper Open Source with these LLMs, means we need to change the meaning of Open Source so it fits with these PR releases?

Open training data is hard to the point of impracticality. It requires excluding private and proprietary data.

Meanwhile, the term "open source" is massively popular. So it will get used. The question is how.

Meta et al would love for the choice to be between, on one hand, open weights only, and, on the other hand, open training data, because the latter is impractical. That dichotomy guarantees that when someone says open source AI they'll mean open weights. (The way open source software, today, generally means source available, not FOSS.)

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#114

Post by mav3ri3k »

I am not deep into llms so I ask this. From my understanding, their last model was open source but it was in a way that you can use them but the inner working were "hidden"/not transparent.

With the new model, I am seeing alot of how open source they are and can be build upon. Is it now completely open source or similar to their last models ?

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#116

Post by ygjb »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #78
ygjb wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they won't. The investment in the Heavy Press Program was the initial build, and just citing one example, the Alcoa 50,000 ton forging press was built in 1955, operated until 2008, and needed ~$100M to get it operational again in 2012. The investment was made to build the press, which created significant jobs and capital investment. The press, and others like it, were subsequently operated by and then sold…

> A GPU cluster might not be the correct investment, but a strategic investment in increasing, for example, the availability of training data, or interoperability of tools, or ease of use for building, training, and distributing models would probably pay big dividends Would you mind expanding on these options? Universal training data sounds intriguing.

Sure, just on the training front, building and maintaining a broad corpus of properly managed training data with metadata that provides attribution (for example, content that is known to be human generated instead of model generated, what the source of data is for datasets such as weather data, census data, etc), and that also captures any licensing encumbrance so that consumers of the training data can be confident in their ability to use it without risk of legal challenge.

Much of this is already available to private sector entities, but having a publicly funded organization responsible for curating and publishing this would enable new entrants to quickly and easily get a foundation without having to scrape the internet again, especially given how rapidly model generated content is being published.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#117

Post by mesebrec »

causal wrote: post #62
mesebrec wrote: post #16

Note that Meta's models are not open source in any interpretation of the term. * You can't use them for any purpose. For example, the license prohibits using these models to train other models. * You can't meaningfully modify them given there is almost no information available about the training data, how they were trained, or how the training data was processed. As such, the model itself is not available under an op…

You are definitely allowed to train other models with these models, you just have to give credit in the name, per the license: > If you use the Llama Materials or any outputs or results of the Llama Materials to create, train, fine tune, or otherwise improve an AI model, which is distributed or made available, you shall also include “Llama” at the beginning of any such AI model name.

Indeed, this is something they changed in the 3.1 version of the license.

Regardless, the license [1] still has many restrictions, such as the acceptable use policy [2].

[1] https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Meta-Llama-3.1-8B/blob/mai...

[2] https://llama.meta.com/llama3_1/use-policy

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#118

Post by the8thbit »

orthoxerox wrote: post #101
the8thbit wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't what Meta releases with their models, though I would like to see more public training data. However, I still don't think that would qualify as "open source". Something isn't open source just because its reproducible out of composable parts. If one, very critical and system defining part is a binary (or similar) without publicly available source code, then I don't think it can be said to be "open source". T…

That's what I meant by "open steps", I guess I wasn't clear enough.

Is that what you meant? I don't think releasing the sequence of steps required to produce the model satisfies "open source", which is how I interpreted you, because there is still no source code for the model.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#119

Post by lukan »

ks2048 wrote: post #91
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #7

“The Heavy Press Program was a Cold War-era program of the United States Air Force to build the largest forging presses and extrusion presses in the world.” This ”program began in 1944 and concluded in 1957 after construction of four forging presses and six extruders, at an overall cost of $279 million. Six of them are still in operation today, manufacturing structural parts for military and commercial aircraft” [1].…

How about using some of that money to develop CUDA alternatives so everyone is not paying the Nvidia tax?

It would be probably cheaper to negate some IP. There are quite some projects and initiatives to make CUDA code run on AMD for example, but as far as I know, they all stopped at some point, probably because of fear of being sued into oblivion.
Post reply on HN