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

Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 630 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models

#201

Post by nadermx »

PunchyHamster wrote: post #194
twright wrote: post #187

This paragraph is wild. > As a thought experiment, imagine only one person had a superintelligent lawyer. They would have an unfair advantage in court -- even if they were wrong on the merits. That would lead to a worse society. But now imagine everyone has a superintelligent lawyer. In this case, justice would be carried out much more fairly and efficiently than it is today when there is often an imbalance in skills…

Yes but if lawyer was "just a bit of AI" you can run at fraction of the cost of hiring law firm, you couldn't just drown them as easily. > Whoever has more money can drown someone in court filings and court fees and then drop their case financially ruining someone. and where the money is going ? to the lawyers ...

or in this case, to the AI company who runs the lawyer.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models

#202

Post by txru »

jayd16 wrote: post #190
jstummbillig wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that makes ist questionable is the dishonesty. It's not like Meta has been building their empire on open ecosystems. If this was something that was dear to them on principle, there are plenty of things that they could have done differently with FB, Insta or WA (to this day). So why the change of heart? Well, it's not. They are simply not able to compete anywhere on the Pareto frontier. So they give their re…

> It's not like Meta has been building their empire on open ecosystems. Is this actually true? They have their closed social graph or whatever but come to think of it they're built on a lot of open tech, the web, Android, etc. Maybe they don't contribute back to a lot of these things? I'm fully ready to believe it but it would be interesting to dive into this conjecture.

I first think of React's re-licensing from Apache, where under the new license if you sued Facebook for patent infringement for any reason, you would lose the patent grant to use React.

React was already quite prominent in web technologies, but that license pointed a loaded gun at any business smaller than Facebook who wanted to use React. They opened it up to its current license, MIT, as the backlash built.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models

#203

Post by sanderjd »

mrDmrTmrJ wrote: post #161
cataphract wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only the AI labs are really interested in closed models. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, ... they'd rather go back to doing stock buybacks and being ridiculously profitable rather than raising capital for all this research and datacenters. They only do it because they think they have to.

If the leading model companies aren't profitable long-term, how do we get the money to continually spend on more research and more compute? I get that plenty of people don't like big corporations or stock buybacks or certain CEOs, which is fine. But as someone who wants to see AGI happen FASTER, I really want to see a clear financial reason for maximal AGI investment. If the model labs aren't clearly profitable, or o…

What I think is that something the "exponential scaling to AGI" thesis pays too little attention to is resource constraints, and that this is the answer to your question. What will happen if it becomes difficult to sustain the investment of resources necessary to continuously train newer and better models is that the s-curve will start to inflect toward plateau, just like any other technology.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models

#204

Post by lrvick »

ViktorRay wrote: post #20

Comments here are surprising to me. I get folks don’t like Zuckerberg and his company and don’t trust his intentions… I don’t either. But this is an unquestionably good thing right?. The more open source software out there the better. And the more open weights or even over source AI stuff the better too right? More competition the better generally speaking I think. Unless I’m missing something and am getting this who…

Zuck built an empire to sell democracy to the highest bidder and to damage the mental health of children to suicidal levels, for money. We must never let anyone forget that for a second.

That said, he is also a powerful enemy of our enemies, so I do not mind taking the win. Anthropic and OpenAIs closed approach to AI is likely to cause way more harm to the world than Zuck ever did.

Open weight is not enough though. We need actually open training models with published searchable training data like AI2 does.

Either we all get access to private, transparent, and accountable superintelligence, or no one should.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models

#206

Post by afro88 »

twright wrote: post #187

This paragraph is wild. > As a thought experiment, imagine only one person had a superintelligent lawyer. They would have an unfair advantage in court -- even if they were wrong on the merits. That would lead to a worse society. But now imagine everyone has a superintelligent lawyer. In this case, justice would be carried out much more fairly and efficiently than it is today when there is often an imbalance in skills…

I'm not a fan of Zuckerberg in the least, but one area a super intelligent lawyer would be fine at is being drowned in court filings and paperwork

The bigger problem with his argument IMO is that even with open models, it's still the person or organisation with the most money / access to GPU compute winning. They run the larger model (or collection of models), they can process more tokens through them in the same amount of time etc

Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models

#207

Post by Reddit_MLP2 »

baron816 wrote: post #122
kylecazar wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most probably believe this is a good thing, but don't want to give Zuckerberg credit because a) he's had a profoundly negative impact on society and b) the strategy is transparent, he's trying to commoditize his closed rivals, it's not out of principle. I personally think more open models are a good thing regardless of motive.

[flagged]

legacy media is not proactively manipulating us via algorithmically amplifying division to increase 'engagement', all to sell us some ads... I do think Zuck is one of the more harmful figures in modern history. That being said, good open models? great!

Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models

#208

Post by dofm »

nerevarthelame wrote: post #199

I prefer open models. But in his essay, Zuckerberg's broader picture of the future is not one I want to embrace: everyone with a personal agent that has information on and involvement with every aspect of our lives, including our relationships and hobbies. Like, his daughter loves to bake, so his AI agent chooses recipes and orders ingredients - as if though those aren't enjoyable and meaningful parts of cooking. Ano…

This is alas not only his imagining, is it:

https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-parenting-debate-sam-altm...

I think you have to pick your battles here. Is this weirdo optimised-human future going to happen? Maybe, maybe not. I hope not. But if it does I'd rather it happened with compute in my house, and I don't even have kids to worry about.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models

#209

Post by anigbrowl »

godelski wrote: post #178
kylecazar wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most probably believe this is a good thing, but don't want to give Zuckerberg credit because a) he's had a profoundly negative impact on society and b) the strategy is transparent, he's trying to commoditize his closed rivals, it's not out of principle. I personally think more open models are a good thing regardless of motive.

> it's not out of principle. There's a bunch of influencers who go help struggling people. I'm certain the majority of them aren't doing it out of principle, but at the end of the day people still get helped. I'd certainly rather things be done out of principle, but depending on what question you're concerned with that might not matter. There's also a clear hierarchy, but motivations are distinct from effect. The inv…

There's a bunch of influencers who go help struggling people. I'm certain the majority of them aren't doing it out of principle, but at the end of the day people still get helped.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect it's like a lot of other things on the internet, with a bimodal distribution between people who get helped a lot ('Sir Hype surprises homeless former billionaire with a MILLION DOLLARS!') with many other similarly deserving people getting nothing. I prefer systems with a lot of people who get helped sufficiently to avoid hitting rock bottom in the first place.

Besides the fact that these undertakings are about promoting the benefactor (and the near certainty that some of these professional philanthropists will later turn out to devils LARPing as angels), it also makes the determination of moral worthiness turn on the public's fickle opinion about whether the recipient is sufficiently beautiful/ ugly/ unlucky/ desperate/ degraded enough to qualify. Charitable undertakings involving cameras are always a bit suspect.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models

#210

Post by cush »

ViktorRay wrote: post #20

Comments here are surprising to me. I get folks don’t like Zuckerberg and his company and don’t trust his intentions… I don’t either. But this is an unquestionably good thing right?. The more open source software out there the better. And the more open weights or even over source AI stuff the better too right? More competition the better generally speaking I think. Unless I’m missing something and am getting this who…

It might be true if it wasn't coming from Meta, but it is coming from Meta. Intelligence is a function of the model and compute. Meta has the capital required to put together world-class compute, but they can't attract the talent required to build world-class models. Given their history of building addictive software to harvest and sell user data for profit, they're the last company we need spearheading how models should be regulated. Nobody trusts Meta to do this.
Post reply on HN