171–180 of 265 posts
They chose to compare against Open AI’s mid tier model Terra instead of Sol and still lost some benchmark against it. They left Opus in and got beat in all but one benchmark. Nothing wrong with trying to improve, but why the marketing games? Instead of trying to say in the post you’re “closer” to frontier, first set a clear goal to beat the Chinese labs on price or performance and demonstrate it convincingly. Then wh…
We can throw benchmarks in the bin by now. Each one I've seen is heavily biased and skewed. It holds very little reliable data points (unfortunately)
No, you really can't. This rhetoric on here is so profoundly boring and tired by now. People have been saying this noise about benchmarks for time eternal, usually because their pet didn't win.
Meta knows their models aren't as good -- demonstrated by their benchmark performance -- and their value proposition is a much lower price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one of those situations where we are both completely baffled by the position held by the other person. The fact that Facebook has so much experience taking advantage of people's private data is one of the reasons I believe them when they say they won't be doing it when you pay them for that service.
I respsct the F out out you and all your work but I am completely baffled by this line of thinking, we are talking about Meta here…
Let's have two pricing levels. One will be 12.5x more expensive than the other. For the cheaper one, we will get their express permission to train models on their inputs. For the more expensive one, we will still treat their data EXACTLY the same, but we'll lie to them and say that we won't. I've checked in with legal and they raised their sherry glasses and toasted "Gentlemen, TO CRIME".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been surprised by the reception to this, as OpenAI, for a while now, has had free API usage when data sharing is enabled ( https://help.openai.com/en/articles/10306912-sharing-feedbac... )
This seems to be for business plans only?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one of those situations where we are both completely baffled by the position held by the other person. The fact that Facebook has so much experience taking advantage of people's private data is one of the reasons I believe them when they say they won't be doing it when you pay them for that service.
How does money change that trust? They certainly have breached their word on this in the past (for non-paying users of Facebook).
I am cynical about this, but I would be careful about giving Meta access even to my open source code by myself.
They chose to compare against Open AI’s mid tier model Terra instead of Sol and still lost some benchmark against it. They left Opus in and got beat in all but one benchmark. Nothing wrong with trying to improve, but why the marketing games? Instead of trying to say in the post you’re “closer” to frontier, first set a clear goal to beat the Chinese labs on price or performance and demonstrate it convincingly. Then wh…
Meta is offering a 10x discount on input ($0.10 vs. $1.25/Mtok) and 20x discount on output ($0.20 vs. $4.25/Mtok) if you opt in to let them train on your data. https://developer.meta.com/ai/models/muse-spark/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He already has it. One of my professors told us about the time he did a request to Facebook to send him all his data. By law they had to send it on paper. They brought it in a big truck. All the stuff he'd deleted was still there, just with "(deleted)" next to it. They have a lot on people without Facebook accounts though, because their tracking stuff is all over the web. I always found it weird that Instagram gives…
> By law they had to send it on paper. They brought it in a big truck. I doubt it; when/where was it? In the EU there’s no such obligation.