Live data from Hacker News

Meta Llama 3

llama.meta.com

131–140 of 965 posts

Re: Meta Llama 3

#131
post #4

They've got a console for it as well, https://www.meta.ai/ And announcing a lot of integration across the Meta product suite, https://about.fb.com/news/2024/04/meta-ai-assistant-built-wi... Neglected to include comparisons against GPT-4-Turbo or Claude Opus, so I guess it's far from being a frontier model. We'll see how it fares in the LLM Arena.

> Meta AI isn't available yet in your country Where is it available? I got this in Norway.

Just use the Replicate demo instead, you can even alter the inference parameters

https://llama3.replicate.dev/

Or run a jupyter notebook from Unsloth on Colab

https://huggingface.co/unsloth/llama-3-8b-bnb-4bit

Re: Meta Llama 3

#132
post #58
post #16

Zuck has an interview out for it as well, https://twitter.com/dwarkesh_sp/status/1780990840179187715

I can't express how good Dwarkesh's podcast is in general.

Lex walked so that Dwarkesh could run. He runs the best AI podcast around right now, by a long shot.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people keep saying that Claude3 has been nerfed? Their CTO has said on Twitter multiple times that not a single byte has been changed since its launch, so I'm curious why I keep hearing this. edit: having trouble finding the tweet I saw recently, it might have been from their lead engineer and not the CTO.

Over yonder: https://x.com/alexalbert__/status/1780707227130863674 my $0.02: it makes me very uncomfortable that people misunderstand LLMs enough to even think this is possible

Thanks, this is the tweet thread I was referring to.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wild considering, GPT-4 is 1.8T.

Where did you find this number? Not doubting it, just want to get a better idea of how precise the estimate may be.

It's a very plausible rumor, but it is misleading in this context, because the rumor also states that it's a mixture of experts model with 8 experts, suggesting that most (perhaps as many as 7/8) of those weights are unused by any particular inference pass.

That might suggest that GPT-4 should be thought of as something like a 250B model. But there's also some selection for the remaining 1/8 of weights that are used by the chosen expert as being the "most useful" weights for that pass (as chosen/defined by the mixture routing), so now it feels like 250B is undercounting the parameter size, whereas 1.8T was overcounting it.

I think it's not really defined how to compare parameter counts with a MoE model.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#135

https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/LICENSE Llama is not open source. It's corporate freeware with some generous allowances. Open source licenses are a well defined thing. Meta marketing saying otherwise doesn't mean they get to usurp the meaning of a well understood and commonly used understanding of the term "open source." https://opensource.org/license Nothing about Meta's license is open source. It's a…

What is "source" regarding an LLM? Public training data and initial parameters?

See this discussion and blog post about a model called OLMo from AI2 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39974374). They try to be more truly open, although here are nuances even with them that make it not fully open. Just like with open source software, an open source model should provide everything you need to reproduce the final output, and with transparency. That means you need the training source code, the data sets, the evaluation suites, the inference code, and more.

Most of these other models, like Llama, are open weight not open source - and open weight is just openwashing, since you’re just getting the final output like a compiled executable. But even with OLMo (and others like Databrick’s DBRX) there are issues with proprietary licenses being used for some things, which prevent truly free use. For some reason in the AI world there is heavy resistance to using OSI-approved licenses like Apache or MIT.

Finally, there is still a lack of openness and transparency on the training data sets even with models that release those data sets. This is because they do a lot of filtering to produce those data sets that happen without any transparency. For example AI2’s OLMo uses a dataset that has been filtered to remove “toxic” content or “hateful” content, with input from “ethics experts” - and this is of course a key input into the overall model that can heavily bias its performance, accuracy, and neutrality.

Unfortunately, there is a lot missing from the current AI landscape as far as openness.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#136
post #4

They've got a console for it as well, https://www.meta.ai/ And announcing a lot of integration across the Meta product suite, https://about.fb.com/news/2024/04/meta-ai-assistant-built-wi... Neglected to include comparisons against GPT-4-Turbo or Claude Opus, so I guess it's far from being a frontier model. We'll see how it fares in the LLM Arena.

They didn't compare against the best models because they were trying to do "in class" comparisons, and the 70B model is in the same class as Sonnet (which they do compare against) and GPT3.5 (which is much worse than sonnet). If they're beating sonnet that means they're going to be within stabbing distance of opus and gpt4 for most tasks, with the only major difference probably arising in extremely difficult reasonin…

Llama is open weight, not open source. They don’t release all the things you need to reproduce their weights.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wild considering, GPT-4 is 1.8T.

Where did you find this number? Not doubting it, just want to get a better idea of how precise the estimate may be.

Probably from Nvidia's GTC keynote: https://www.youtube.com/live/USlE2huSI_w?t=2995.

In the keynote, Jensen uses 1.8T in an example and suggests that this is roughly the size of GPT-4 (if I remember correctly).

Re: Meta Llama 3

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wild considering, GPT-4 is 1.8T.

Where did you find this number? Not doubting it, just want to get a better idea of how precise the estimate may be.

I'm not OP, but George Hotz said in his lex friedman podcast a while back that it was an MoE of 8 250B. subtract out duplication of attention nodes, and you get something right around 1.8T

Re: Meta Llama 3

#140

https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/LICENSE Llama is not open source. It's corporate freeware with some generous allowances. Open source licenses are a well defined thing. Meta marketing saying otherwise doesn't mean they get to usurp the meaning of a well understood and commonly used understanding of the term "open source." https://opensource.org/license Nothing about Meta's license is open source. It's a…

Yes or no, do you conceed that for almost everyone, none of what you said matters, and almost everyone can use llama 3 for their use case, and that basically nobody is going to have to worry about being sued, other than maybe like Google, or equivalent?

You are using all these scary words without saying the obvious, which is that for almost everyone, none of that matters.

Post reply on HN