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

Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 168 posts

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#151

Post by pmarreck »

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #75
pmarreck wrote: post #66

I have a 128 core Threadripper, a 2080 Ti and a 3080 Ti. How can I play with open source LLM's locally?

Kobold.cpp is your best bet. You can leverage those big CPUs while still loading both GPUs with a 65B model. ... If you are feeling extra nice, you should set that up as an AI horde worker whenever you run koboldcpp to play with models. It will run API requests for others in the background whenever its not crunching your own requests, in return allowing you priority access to models other hosts are running: https://a…

oooh, this is a great idea

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#152

Post by TX81Z »

innagadadavida wrote: post #135
TX81Z wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Rich authors”. Citation needed.

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

Going to go with “no, you don’t need to be rich to sue”. Likewise to be included in a class action you don’t have to pay anything, or even participate any way, you just get a cut of the settlement.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#153

Post by TX81Z »

pmoriarty wrote: post #120
TX81Z wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Copyright and licensing is one model that has worked for a long time. It has flaws, but it has produced good things." By some definition of "worked". If we define "worked" as "made money for", who it worked mostly for are the middlemen and a minority of writers... a minority that with the advent of LLMs is likely to shrink even further.

Not friends with any journalists I’m assuming?

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#154

Post by [deleted] »

Auracle wrote: post #129
411111111111111 wrote: post #99

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…

[deleted]

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#155

Post by brucethemoose2 »

pmarreck wrote: post #151
brucethemoose2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kobold.cpp is your best bet. You can leverage those big CPUs while still loading both GPUs with a 65B model. ... If you are feeling extra nice, you should set that up as an AI horde worker whenever you run koboldcpp to play with models. It will run API requests for others in the background whenever its not crunching your own requests, in return allowing you priority access to models other hosts are running: https://a…

oooh, this is a great idea

Also, I would suggest this model as one to play with:

https://huggingface.co/ycros/airoboros-65b-gpt4-1.4.1-PI-819...

Check the prompting syntax here, it has a huge effect on the output:

https://huggingface.co/jondurbin/airoboros-65b-gpt4-1.4

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#156

Post by sangnoir »

TechnicolorByte wrote: post #29
Jeff_Brown wrote: post #2

What's the monetization model here? Is this a closed-source version of their open-source model? (That's suggested by the phrase in the article, "a commercial version of LLaMA, its open-source large language model".)

Like others said it’s probably to commoditize their competition. The models don’t matter so much as ownership of the platform and critical data. Which is why OpenAI is in a tricky position (although I guess they’re partnered with Microsoft). It seems like the existing large platforms of today—Microsoft’s enterprise moat, Google’s ads and internet services, Meta’s social networks, Apple’s consumer and mobile products—…

> More broadly speaking, I believe the days where the top X largest companies in the stock company would be displaced by newer companies every decade or so is over.

I disagree: I think big tech is hard to disrupt ATM because the companies are still young and nimble. In the last cycle, the companies being displaced were ancient (by tech standards). When Google and Facebook are 30 years old, their DNA will get in the way of adopting to a new paradigm that will change the world. A paradigm that may be to the Metaverse what the smartphone was to the Apple Newton

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#157

Post by pmoriarty »

TX81Z wrote: post #153
pmoriarty wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Copyright and licensing is one model that has worked for a long time. It has flaws, but it has produced good things." By some definition of "worked". If we define "worked" as "made money for", who it worked mostly for are the middlemen and a minority of writers... a minority that with the advent of LLMs is likely to shrink even further.

Not friends with any journalists I’m assuming?

There aren't many of them left.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#158

Post by cameldrv »

foob wrote: post #47

From the recent story about the Sarah Silverman lawsuit: The complaint lays out in steps why the plaintiffs believe the datasets have illicit origins — in a Meta paper detailing LLaMA, the company points to sources for its training datasets, one of which is called ThePile, which was assembled by a company called EleutherAI. ThePile, the complaint points out, was described in an EleutherAI paper as being put together…

It seems difficult to argue that Meta can copy every ebook in existence to train a model, but then other people cannot copy the resulting model.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#159

Post by tomrod »

whimsicalism wrote: post #84
powersnail wrote: post #52

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.

Agreed. Unfortunately it's those semantics that keep from losing lawsuits.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#160

Post by potsandpans »

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #70
foob wrote: post #47

From the recent story about the Sarah Silverman lawsuit: The complaint lays out in steps why the plaintiffs believe the datasets have illicit origins — in a Meta paper detailing LLaMA, the company points to sources for its training datasets, one of which is called ThePile, which was assembled by a company called EleutherAI. ThePile, the complaint points out, was described in an EleutherAI paper as being put together…

> It's not like Meta can remove these books from the training set without retraining from scratch (or at least the last checkpoint before they were used). They probably can: https://github.com/zjunlp/EasyEdit > I wonder if this is going to cause issues down the road. There are some popular Stable Diffusion models, being run in small businesses, that I am certain have CSAM in them because they have a particular 4chan…

that is quite the spicy claim
Post reply on HN