161–170 of 283 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open weights models, not open source. And even their weights are under a specific license not as permissive as apache 2.
Does an “open source” model the way you describe it exist or is it a mythical creature?
This has nothing to do with superintelligence, it's just the people that were working on the paper prior to the re-org happened to publish after the name change. Though it is notable that contrary to many (on HN and Twitter) that Meta would stop publishing papers and be like other AI labs (e.g. OpenAI). They're continued their rapid pace of releasing papers AND open source models.
Open weights models, not open source. And even their weights are under a specific license not as permissive as apache 2.
I am not surprised because the culture at meta is not at all, even in the slightest, to focus on science for the sake of it. It’s actively actively purged out of you. The focus is on metrics and how the bottom line is impacted. So this is in line with that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've spent most of my career working, chatting and hanging out with what might be best described as "passionate weirdos" in various quantitative areas of research. I say "weirdos" because they're people driven by an obsession with a topic, but don't always fit the mold by having the ideal combination of background, credentials and personality to land them on a big tech company research team. The other day I was spend…
> I certainly didn't judge them because they are just playing the game. Please do judge them for being parasitical. They might seem successful by certain measures, like the amount of money they make, but I for one simply dislike it when people only think about themselves. As a society, we should be more cautious about narcissism and similar behaviors. Also, in the long run, this kind of behaviour makes them an annoyi…
The key word there is only. Nothing in the post you suggested only. You have one vignette about one facet of this guy’s life.
I really dislike the resurgence in Puritanism.
One thing I don't get about the ever-reoccuring RAG discussions and hype men proclaiming "Rag is dead", is that people seem to be talking about wholly different things? My mental model is that what is called RAG can either be: - a predefined document store / document chunk store where every chunk gets a a vector embedding, and a lookup decides what gets pulled into context as to not have to pull whole classes of docu…
We can't throw in infinite things in the context though. My impression is that GPT-5 gets confused, not quite right away, but after a couple of pages it has no idea. It doesn't take pages on pages before it forgets things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open weights models, not open source. And even their weights are under a specific license not as permissive as apache 2.
Does an “open source” model the way you describe it exist or is it a mythical creature?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open weights models, not open source. And even their weights are under a specific license not as permissive as apache 2.
Does an “open source” model the way you describe it exist or is it a mythical creature?
[1] https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2025/07/a-l...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I certainly didn't judge them because they are just playing the game. Please do judge them for being parasitical. They might seem successful by certain measures, like the amount of money they make, but I for one simply dislike it when people only think about themselves. As a society, we should be more cautious about narcissism and similar behaviors. Also, in the long run, this kind of behaviour makes them an annoyi…
but I for one simply dislike it when people only think about themselves The key word there is only. Nothing in the post you suggested only. You have one vignette about one facet of this guy’s life. I really dislike the resurgence in Puritanism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open weights models, not open source. And even their weights are under a specific license not as permissive as apache 2.
This is the right terminology. Model weights are literally compiled binary data; they are the output of an algorithm run on a bunch of source data. That training dataset is the "source" of the model. Training data (or the scripts used to generate it) is human-readable and modifiable, like source code. Binary weights are not.