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

Muse Spark 1.3

developer.meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 475 posts

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#111

Post by luckylion »

canadaduane wrote: post #82
drob518 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gotta be honest that I’m tired of the “I hate Zuck and Meta so much” comments every time Meta does anything. Ditto Elon/X. Fine, I get it. I don’t like Zuck either. But the post is about Muse Spark 1.3. What do you think about that? If you don’t like it because Meta made it, then maybe just don’t use it and stay silent.

I get it, but the underlying problem is: we don't have a society-wide, effective solution to counterbalancing extractive systems. Lacking a reliable label, we have to constantly signal what's on the ingredients list.

Are not all corporations extractive by nature? Google clearly is.

That's obviously not the issue with that -- you don't see those comments on Google's AI announcements.

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#112

Post by utopcell »

redox99 wrote: post #79
kenjackson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't all suck equally. Here's the order, from best to worst. Amodei Google SamA Zuck Elon

You can ask 100 people and they'll all give you a different list. It's subjective. I think a less personal ranking would be, as a business owner, which of those providers is more dependable? As in, you don't care about evil, just your stuff working. I think maybe OpenAI?

> You can ask 100 people and they'll all give you a different list.

True. With 5 choices you need at least 126 people before you can guarantee that two lists are the same.

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#113

Post by jwitthuhn »

tyre wrote: post #47

Meta is one of those companies where, if there is anything remotely comparable, I'm happy to pay more to not use them. They've had a profoundly negative impact on society and Zuckerberg is not who I want controlling the future at the top of AI. I feel the same about Grok w/ Elon. I will pay extra to use someone else. I'm not an Amodei stan, but of all of these people he seems to have the most ethical focus. Again, no…

Dario's idea of an ethical focus seems to be keeping powerful models out of the hand of anyone unethical, which coincidentally is everyone except him.

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#114

Post by devy »

tyre wrote: post #47

Meta is one of those companies where, if there is anything remotely comparable, I'm happy to pay more to not use them. They've had a profoundly negative impact on society and Zuckerberg is not who I want controlling the future at the top of AI. I feel the same about Grok w/ Elon. I will pay extra to use someone else. I'm not an Amodei stan, but of all of these people he seems to have the most ethical focus. Again, no…

> I'm not an Amodei stan, but of all of these people he seems to have the most ethical focus. Again, not everything done perfectly and I have my gripes, but of the leaders of frontier labs, I'll vote with my money.

Amodei is NO Saint!!! He's the most savvy in drumming up the AI doomsday scenarios and haven't yet to apologized his failed forecast of Claude taking over 90% of the coding jobs.

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#115

Post by KptMarchewa »

scottyah wrote: post #76
kenjackson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't all suck equally. Here's the order, from best to worst. Amodei Google SamA Zuck Elon

SamA better than Zuck? Zuck was at least a kid when he made a lot of his bad decisions, and he seems to be getting much better. Sam is on the reverse trajectory.

I am 100% convinced Zuck is maybe better at masking now, but is exactly the same lizard who wrote

>>> They "trust me" >>> Dumb fucks

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#116

Post by zhoBEENG »

finnjohnsen2 wrote: post #12

So one model is "Not used to improve our products" and is 10-20 times more expensive to the "Used to improve our products"-model. Given this is Meta, my immediate assumptions that one is cheap because it lets me "be the product". I know I'm rushing to conclusions but there is zero trust here. The brain will do its thing. And the wording here is giving the brains a lot of wiggle room.

Would it help you understand if they were labelled "For Dumb Fucks" and "For Everyone Else"?

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#117

Post by hollowturtle »

simonw wrote: post #3

llm -m meta-ai/muse-spark-1.3 "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht... 4.2266 cents, 38 seconds. For comparison here's Muse Spark 1.2, which animated it without me asking it to: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht... The 1.3 one is definitely better - better bicycle frame, better wing, better pelican hat. UPDATE: Here's an…

Is there any point anymore regarding this svg test? I would not be surprised if in the training they're fine tuned for this task too

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#118

Post by KptMarchewa »

MangoCoffee wrote: post #109
superfrank wrote: post #28

I started using Spark 1.2 for development because if you're willing to let Meta train on your data it was dirt cheap and was actually really pleasantly surprised with it. It's not a frontier model by any means, but for work that didn't require a top of the line model, I really enjoyed using it. I'm anthropomorphizing it a bit, but it felt like it knew its weaknesses and didn't try to impose it's opinions on me. What…

>I started using Spark 1.2 for development because if you're willing to let Meta train on your data it was dirt cheap its free on opencode and i use it for personal projects. most of my personal projects are AI generated since its personal projects. nothing important are on them. it is hilarious if Meta is training their AI model with AI generated code.

I would imagine your interactions with it are more important than the output.

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#119

Post by bradlys »

tyre wrote: post #47

Meta is one of those companies where, if there is anything remotely comparable, I'm happy to pay more to not use them. They've had a profoundly negative impact on society and Zuckerberg is not who I want controlling the future at the top of AI. I feel the same about Grok w/ Elon. I will pay extra to use someone else. I'm not an Amodei stan, but of all of these people he seems to have the most ethical focus. Again, no…

What is the point of this comment?

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#120

Post by porphyra »

kenjackson wrote: post #71
redox99 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google, Zuck, Sama, Elon, Amodei (in no particular order). They all suck. Pick your poison.

They don't all suck equally. Here's the order, from best to worst. Amodei Google SamA Zuck Elon

In my personal opinion (this will be controversial and feel free to disagree): Elon is the best.

* great contributions to many industries including spaceflight, electric cars, and self driving cars. It doesn't even matter if he is the technical mind behind these achievements or if he is just a buffoon that pretends to know the implementation details; the dude has a way of bringing together experts, having the overall vision, and managing them properly to ship amazing stuff.

* sane and reasonable takes on AI/LLM stuff. I can't really argue with "pursuit of truth" as the guiding principle. Grok talks normally without "Claudlish", has a balanced score on political bias unlike other models, has a low hallucination rate, is the best at dealing with latest news (unlike ChatGPT that refuses to believe new developments and gaslights the user), and they "never silently downgrade intelligence or fall back to other models."

In contrast, while Dario is doubtless a super smart pioneer in the AI space, his sanctimonious "We know what's good for you" attitude and extreme censorship is really offputting. The lengths to which he tries to ban or hamstring open models seems like an underhanded way to defeat competition. If he were to succeed, it would be a big setback to the thriving ecosystem of open models and hamper the development of the entire industry.

Post reply on HN