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

161–168 of 168 posts

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#161

Post by 411111111111111 »

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…

I'm not saying that it would be better for authors without copyright. That would indeed be hard to ascertain without a/b testing.

My point was that it doesn't improve their lives, and that's much easier to check in isolation just by reading the news about the current writers strike and how the industry just ignores it until fall, expecting their savings to run out.

Really, copyright just doesn't give the content creators any meaningful power as this right is generally owned by the industry/publisher, not the authors.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#162

Post by l33t233372 »

IshKebab wrote: post #147
l33t233372 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nobody does that because if you only have binaries you probably don't have permission to do that. Plus it's impractical to make any significant changes that way.

If you have binaries you almost always have “permission” to do that — you can do whatever you’d like with files on your own system.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#163

Post by TheBengaluruGuy »

This conversation triggers a thought.

Does it mean that any blogs that I wrote from my own insights, will automatically be trained on the model… without my permission?

As an author, it feels like it’s stealing the knowledge and insight without appropriate attribution.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#164

Post by Auracle »

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #142
Auracle wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are tons of web services for this. They are just obscure and distributed enough to avoid public ire. The pieces to do local LORA training are all there, but honestly the tyranny of CUDA is the biggest blocker for the average person.

Sure, but it's still not super user friendly. You upload photos, get a 2 GB checkpoint file that you run on some obscure, sometimes hard to install programs.

I know there was a phone app that did a limited thing where they gave you profile images and they made bank. I'm a little surprised nobody has tried going whole hog, if the app stores would even allow it.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#165

Post by anaganisk »

TheBengaluruGuy wrote: post #163

This conversation triggers a thought. Does it mean that any blogs that I wrote from my own insights, will automatically be trained on the model… without my permission? As an author, it feels like it’s stealing the knowledge and insight without appropriate attribution.

I think we are at a looking where we just have to let go unless we are Disney, with an army of lawyers. May be it's time for the change in thinking. Having said that. Attribution allows a person to trace the source, it's not a success marker anymore. Probably, if enough negative statements generated by AI get popular, that could potentially piss of countries/people for example some LLM recognizing Taiwan as independent country you can bet China will push for attribution to sources. We have bills pending in multiple countries that want access to personal of encrypted messages to trace the source.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#166

Post by mensetmanusman »

IshKebab wrote: post #148
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…

The production of knowledge (I assume you're mainly talking about scientific research here) is absolutely not funded by copyright royalties or anything like that. Journals get their content for free. Actually often they charge the authors for it. Research is mainly funded by governments and taxes.

Industrial R&D is actually almost 3x larger than government funded R&D.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rd-for-the-public-good-wa....

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#167

Post by IshKebab »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #166
IshKebab wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The production of knowledge (I assume you're mainly talking about scientific research here) is absolutely not funded by copyright royalties or anything like that. Journals get their content for free. Actually often they charge the authors for it. Research is mainly funded by governments and taxes.

Industrial R&D is actually almost 3x larger than government funded R&D. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/rd-for-the-public-good-wa... .

Yeah fair, but still 0% funded by copyright.

Industrial R&D also tends to me more "research for hire" rather than pure research. A bit closer to consulting.

Anyway my point still stands.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#168

Post by slimebot80 »

spmurrayzzz wrote: post #42
zargon wrote: 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.

Maybe this is just semantics, but I don't know if the OSS-vs-freemium distinction matters all that much (I'd have to think about the potential downsides a bit more tbh). Virtually every discussion in the LLM space right now is almost immediately bifurcated by the "can I use this commercially?" question which has a somewhat chilling effect on innovation. The best performing open source LLMs we have today are llama-bas…

Forgive my ignorance, but might it matter if a country was hoping to limit another countries advancement into weaponising AI?
Post reply on HN