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

Everything we announced at our first LlamaCon

ai.meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 122 posts

Re: Everything we announced at our first LlamaCon

#111

Post by lern_too_spel »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #69
amusingimpala75 wrote: post #46

Meta needs to stop open-washing their product. It simply is not open-source. The license for their precompiled binary blob (ie model) should not be considered open-source, and the source code (ie training process / data) isn’t available.

I get the argument completely, but isn't the open-washing a little acceptable if they're the only big company releasing open-weights models?

What is the point of considering this hypothetical? Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, Apple, and many Chinese big-tech companies also release open weights models, most with fewer restrictions.

Re: Everything we announced at our first LlamaCon

#112

Post by charcircuit »

littlestymaar wrote: post #102
charcircuit wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying movies (binary blobs) are not subject to copyright laws?

The blob itself isn't, exactly: you cannot just reencode a movie and claim copyright protection over the resulting blob. What's protected is the content of the movie, and it's protected because it derives from human creativity . > The copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” > […] > Similarly, the Office will not register works produced by a…

>you cannot just reencode a movie and claim copyright protection over the resulting blob.

Because that would be a derivative work.

>the content of the movie

Which exists as a binary blob. Copying that binary blob requires a license to do so.

Re: Everything we announced at our first LlamaCon

#113

Post by nailer »

nailer wrote: post #80

This is odd - it keeps mentioning Open Source but the Llama license isn’t open source at all - see https://www.llama.com/llama3/license/ . The “additional commercial terms” section violates the open source definition as does the advertising clause. I would’ve hoped to have seen Meta, in their supposed dedication to open source, actually fix it.

https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/issues/156 if anyone else feels like commenting

Re: Everything we announced at our first LlamaCon

#114

Post by bentt »

This company is so untrustworthy, I don't see how anyone could dedicate any time to working with their platform or technology. Any acts of benevolence that they are putting forth now are sure to be followed by the most underhanded rug pulls you can imagine. My guess is that they'll let the model out for free, but they'll want to own the "memory" that defines people that use it. Who knows, but they're definitely thinking about the future beyond just playing defense and using FB Ad money to artificially compete in this space by giving things away.

Re: Everything we announced at our first LlamaCon

#115

Post by nowittyusername »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #90
nowittyusername wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? I am pretty active in those spaces and most folks it seems are using any number of the Chinese models like qwen, qwq, etc...

If by those spaces you mean reddit, then yeah I've also noticed this trend. It has became more egregious with the duality of L4 vs Qwen3 reception. L4 was blamed, mocked and everyone was posting shit about it (well, some of it was relevant since the launch was rushed and many providers had bad implementations for ~2-3 days) in stark contrast to qwen3 which also had inferencing problems (related to 3rd party tools usi…

Nah not just reddit but also like 20 AI related discord servers. But a couple of things, first I do agree that no one should take anyone's opinion as gospel. I live by that and test all of my models. Second, I wasn't expressing my opinion of what model is good or not good just reflecting the broader trends I see within the communities (for better or worse). On llama 4 botched launch... On this particular matter I see this happen almost every launch. A model comes out, shit hyperparameters are used or the model organization does a poor job of communicating towards the community on best practices for how to run the model, community shits on model, rinse repeat EVERY god damned release cycle. So yeah I am quite aware of this particular phenomenon.

Re: Everything we announced at our first LlamaCon

#116

Post by CaptainFever »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #69
amusingimpala75 wrote: post #46

Meta needs to stop open-washing their product. It simply is not open-source. The license for their precompiled binary blob (ie model) should not be considered open-source, and the source code (ie training process / data) isn’t available.

I get the argument completely, but isn't the open-washing a little acceptable if they're the only big company releasing open-weights models?

My issue with Meta's open-washing is that it is also not open-weight, given the license restrictions. It's "weight-available", I suppose. Try OLMo instead.

Re: Everything we announced at our first LlamaCon

#117

Post by littlestymaar »

charcircuit wrote: post #112
littlestymaar wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blob itself isn't, exactly: you cannot just reencode a movie and claim copyright protection over the resulting blob. What's protected is the content of the movie, and it's protected because it derives from human creativity . > The copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” > […] > Similarly, the Office will not register works produced by a…

>you cannot just reencode a movie and claim copyright protection over the resulting blob. Because that would be a derivative work. >the content of the movie Which exists as a binary blob. Copying that binary blob requires a license to do so.

> Because that would be a derivative work

No, derivative work require human creativity themselves. Compiling or re-encoding still doesn't count.

See : https//www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101

A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

> Which exists as a binary blob.

Nope, for copyright protection it must exist at least as one binary blob, but having multiple binary blobs (with different resolutions) doesn't make it a different copyright piece. It's the underlying creation that is protected, not a particular instance of it. Star Wars, the Empire Strikes Back is what's registered at the Copyright Office, not Star_Wars_The_Empire_Strikes_Back.720p.avi.

> Copying that binary blob requires a license to do so.

Fortunately no, otherwise your internet provider would need a license from the copyright holders to copy the blob from Netflix server to your machine.

One last time: copyright isn't about the blob, it's about the creation stored on it. The process of creating the blob doesn't grant you any copyright protection of you don't own the underlying material.

Re: Everything we announced at our first LlamaCon

#118

Post by charcircuit »

littlestymaar wrote: post #117
charcircuit wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you cannot just reencode a movie and claim copyright protection over the resulting blob. Because that would be a derivative work. >the content of the movie Which exists as a binary blob. Copying that binary blob requires a license to do so.

> Because that would be a derivative work No, derivative work require human creativity themselves. Compiling or re-encoding still doesn't count. See : https//www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work". > Which exists as a binary blob. Nope, for cop…

>No, derivative work require human creativity themselves.

Then it would just be a copy then. Copies need a license.

>Fortunately no, otherwise your internet provider would need a license from the copyright holders to copy the blob from Netflix server to your machine.

No, I believe this is because internet providers do not save the content which means that a copy is not considered to be made. If copies were allowed of binary blobs people could legally make pirate sites sharing copies like that.

Re: Everything we announced at our first LlamaCon

#119

Post by CelticBard »

gardenhedge wrote: post #54
ntonozzi wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the weirdest and most interesting parts of LLMs is that they grow more effective the more languages and disciplines they are trained in. It turns out training LLMs on code instead of just prose boosted their intelligence and reasoning capabilities by huge amounts.

Source? Sounds interesting

There are a lot of papers that stumble upon this while working with LLMs and its mentioned off hand in the conclusions. If you want a paper that explicitly tested this here you go - https://aclanthology.org/2022.coling-1.437.pdf

Re: Everything we announced at our first LlamaCon

#120

Post by littlestymaar »

charcircuit wrote: post #118
littlestymaar wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because that would be a derivative work No, derivative work require human creativity themselves. Compiling or re-encoding still doesn't count. See : https//www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work". > Which exists as a binary blob. Nope, for cop…

>No, derivative work require human creativity themselves. Then it would just be a copy then. Copies need a license. >Fortunately no, otherwise your internet provider would need a license from the copyright holders to copy the blob from Netflix server to your machine. No, I believe this is because internet providers do not save the content which means that a copy is not considered to be made. If copies were allowed of…

> No, I believe this is because internet providers do not save the content which means that a copy is not considered to be made.

Nope, that's not the reason, and that's why you don't need to give a copyright license to Apple before storing your personal pictures to iCloud either, nor does Apple need a license to store copyrighted material you got a license for (like software or paid downloaded movies). Copying a blob isn't a license infringement in itself, because the blob itself was never protected by copyright.

> If copies were allowed of binary blobs people could legally make pirate sites sharing copies like that.

No, because sharing is what you'd get prosecuted for.

Part of me thinks you should really try to start learning the basis of stuff before arguing on the internet about it, but who am I to judge your life choices. I did my best to help you learn something, but if you refuse to there's nothing more I can do.

Post reply on HN