Live data from Hacker News

Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

zdnet.com

131–140 of 168 posts

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source code is the preferred form for development. In your scenario, despite the unrealistic coding process, the machine code is the source code, because that's what everyone is working on. In the development of LLM, the weights is in no way the preferred form of development. Programmers don't work on weights. They work on data, infrastructure, the model, the code for training, etc. The point of machine learning is n…

What? You work on the weights - you just do it using tools like the optimizers, etc. You release your weights, others can build on top of that, fine tune it in different ways, produce new weights they can share with others. Seems very OSS-y. I feel like there is some semantic nitpicky point being made here that is completely going over my head.

By "work on", I mean "making direct edits". If we take broad definition of "work on", we lose all the distinction between source code and output. Any binary code is source code in any project, because the programmers simply is using tools to work on them, like the compiler.

For all practical purposes, if you are part of the team who released the LLMs, you would be writing and modifying the code of data processing, of the model, and of the training process. Those should be considered source code.

And we do have the model, which is pretty Oss-y, and which is why we can fine-tune the weights. But from a broader perspective, it's not fully Oss-y, because we don't have the code for anything else. There's no way to change, for example, how the training is done in the first place.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You state this as a fact, but it's actually much less certain wherever it's ever been net-positive. It was probably intended that way, but the reality is that the power has been with the publisher since the beginning, and they've absolutly been screwing over the author's as well. Only the most successful author's have gotten decent deals. I don't have an answer to this either though, i just wanted to point out that c…

The only way you’d know is to A/B test with a country with no copyright, and see how their authors get by. My guess is extremely poorly. Again, the biggest might be fine. Instead of publishers paying fairly little to authors they could just literally take the best books and print them, taking all of the profits…not to mention ebooks. I’m not an author so I can’t speak to how much publishers make, but I’d assume that…

> The only way you’d know is to A/B test with a country with no copyright, and see how their authors get by.

According to https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/no-copyright-... we already had that A/B experiment.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The source code is all the supporting code needed to run inference on the weights. This is usually python and in the case of llama it's already open source. Usually the source code is referred to as the "model". You can kind of think of the weights as a settings file in a normal desktop application. The desktop app has its own source code and loads in the settings file at runtime. It can load different settings files…

This is almost completely wrong. When peope who work in AI refer to the "model", they are generally referring to the weights. It is the weights which are the most important determinant of how the model performs, and it is the weights that require the most resources to develop. Associated code and other assets are also important, but they not the core asset. The intuitive sense of open sourcing a model therefore typic…

I am not making a value judgement on what's the "most important" aspect when comparing the code vs the weights. I am just explaining the terminology as I understand it. Your intuitive sense of open sourcing certainly makes sense to me. I think a lay person would expect to be able to generate content with an "open source ai model" and that wouldn't be possible if only the code was open sourced and not the weights.

If you can show me people who work in AI calling just the weights a "model" then I would happily update my internal definition of the word. I am certainly not an expert in the subject, I am just going off what I've read from the community over the past few years.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#135
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright laws should be amended to allow this scenario. If I read a book and write about it in a blog, it is considered review. Why shouldn’t we allow companies to do the same to train their models? Overall it will benefit society more than it hurts some rich authors.

“Rich authors”. Citation needed.

I meant the authors that are suing - if you have the money to sue, you can be considered rich? no?

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#136
post #130
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Llama isn't open source either. But if I understand your point correctly, you're saying that the commercial use axis is what is important to people, and it's orthogonal to freeware vs open source. In the present environment, I agree. But I don't think we should let companies get away with poisoning the term open source for things which are not. I also believe that actual open source models have the near-term opportun…

Neural network weights are better viewed as source code because they specify what function the network computes. As we're operating purely on feed-forward networks, there are no loops. Therefore, weights fully describe everything relevant for executing their represented function on inputs. Weights can be seen as a sort of intermediate language (with lots of stored data and partially computed states) interpretable by…

> Weights can be seen as a sort of intermediate language (with lots of stored data and partially computed states) interpretable by some deep learning library.

I've often talked about weights being the equivalent to assembly, your note seems to map to a similar intuition. And in that sense provided we ever solve the interpretability problem, we could in theory disassemble the weights to achieve similar outcomes as we do in asm-to-C. Interesting thought experiment insofar as, if the weights ought not be classified as open source (notwithstanding your first point which I agree with), can the disassembled output be classified as open source?

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have been saying this about underage hand drawn hentai forever, but its still around. Not that I am disagreeing with you. What I find particularly disturbing are the paid services for this. Also, I have seen 2 seperate OnlyFans pimps ask for help in a text generation chatroom. Something about automating "private" texting from their "girls."

It’s trivial to use these methods to produce real looking images, or even stuff in the likeness of real people…

Yeah. I did a fine tuned model of my daughter and niece and I definitely have to put in “sexy, naked,” and the like in the negative prompt when using them.

I don’t think society is going to have a hissyfit until some app comes along that makes it super easy for people to train good models locally on people and then generate whatever they want. That day’s coming really soon though.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#138
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes, I wonder what if someone in XYZ country downloads whole of Z-Library/Libgen, all the books ever printed, and all the papers ever published, all the newspapers and so on. and releases the model open source. There are jurisdictions with Lax rules. And they will have much better knowledge, answers, etc than the western, Lawyer approved models. Sometimes knowledge needs to be set free I guess.

The production of knowledge needs to be funded as it isn’t “free”. Copyright and licensing is one model that has worked for a long time. It has flaws, but it has produced good things. At this point with the quality of current web content and the collapse of journalism as an industry I think we can say online ads have utterly failed as a replacement income stream. Unless you want all LLM to say “I’m sorry the data I w…

>The production of knowledge needs to be funded as it isn’t “free”. Copyright and licensing is one model that has worked for a long time.

Can you give some examples of new knowledge that was copyrighted? Generally copyright is used to protect art, software and textbooks. People who produce new knowledge generally are not paid by copyright. The knowledge is either kept secret or published in a journal from which the author recieves no compensation.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#139
post #16

It's not open source, it's freeware or something like that. Weights aren't the source code of LLMs, they're the binaries.

Strong disagree - I think OSS is fine framing of this. Weights are a third category, you can 'fork' them in an a way that you can't with standard binaries.

You can add hooks to functions and “fork” binaries, which is a pretty similar effort to adding training data to given model weights.
Post reply on HN