Meta Llama 3 • Hacker News Board

Re: Meta Llama 3

#231

Post by eigenvalue » Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 5:48 PM UTC

I just want to express how grateful I am that Zuck and Yann and the rest of the Meta team have adopted an open approach and are sharing the model weights, the tokenizer, information about the training data, etc. They, more than anyone else, are responsible for the explosion of open research and improvement that has happened with things like llama.cpp that now allow you to run quite decent models locally on consumer hardware in a way that you can avoid any censorship or controls.

Not that I even want to make inference requests that would run afoul of the controls put in place by OpenAI and Anthropic (I mostly use it for coding stuff), but I hate the idea of this powerful technology being behind walls and having gate-keepers controlling how you can use it.

Obviously, there are plenty of people and companies out there that also believe in the open approach. But they don't have hundreds of billions of dollars of capital and billions in sustainable annual cash flow and literally ten(s) of billions of dollars worth of GPUs! So it's a lot more impactful when they do it. And it basically sets the ground rules for everyone else, so that Mistral now also feels compelled to release model weights for most of their models.

Anyway, Zuck didn't have to go this way. If Facebook were run by "professional" outside managers of the HBS/McKinsey ilk, I think it's quite unlikely that they would be this open with everything, especially after investing so much capital and energy into it. But I am very grateful that they are, and think we all benefit hugely from not only their willingness to be open and share, but also to not use pessimistic AI "doomerism" as an excuse to hide the crown jewels and put it behind a centralized API with a gatekeeper because of "AI safety risks." Thanks Zuck!

Re: Meta Llama 3

#232

Post by hnfong » Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 5:49 PM UTC

pzo wrote: post #193

PokeyCat wrote: post #151

Would love to experiment with this for work, but the following clause in the license (notably absent in the Llama 2 license) would make this really hard: > i. If you distribute or make available the Llama Materials (or any derivative works thereof), or a product or service that uses any of them, including another AI model, you shall (A) provide a copy of this Agreement with any such Llama Materials; and (B) prominent…

deepseek-coder-instruct 6.7B still looks like is better than llama 3 8B on HumanEval [0], and deepseek-coder-instruct 33B still within reach to run on 32 GB Macbook M2 Max - Lamma 3 70B on the other hand will be hard to run locally unless you really have 128GB ram or more. But we will see in the following days how it performs in real life. [0] https://github.com/deepseek-ai/deepseek-coder?tab=readme-ov-...

With quantized models you can run 70B models on 64GB RAM comfortably.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#233

Post by mrtranscendence » Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 5:50 PM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #205

Maybe a side-note or off-topic. But am I the only one that's shocked/confused why these giant tech companies have huge models, so much compute to run them on, and they still can't get certain basic things right. Something as simple, for Facebook, as detecting a fake profile that's super-obvious to any human that's been on the net for any appreciable amount of time.

Or how it took Google ages to address the scam "You Win!" YouTube comments disguised as if coming from the videos' posters. How hard could that be, exactly?

Re: Meta Llama 3

#234

Post by PeterStuer » Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 5:50 PM UTC

Open weight models do more for AI safety than any other measure by far, as the most serious threath is never going to be misuse, but abuse of unequal access.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#235

Post by dev1ycan » Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 5:51 PM UTC

dheera wrote: post #161

matsemann wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

EU? I live in south america and don't have access either, Facebook is just showing what the US plans to do, weaponize AI in the future and give itself accesss first.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#236

Post by mrtranscendence » Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 5:51 PM UTC

2c2c wrote: post #51

this space moves impossibly fast... are all open models still just derivatives of llama?

No, but there's a reason so many adjacent libraries and software packages name themselves after Llama (Ollama, llama.cpp, etc)

Re: Meta Llama 3

#237

Post by modeless » Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 5:53 PM UTC

bbig wrote: post #16

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

Seems like a year or two of MMA has done way more for his charisma than whatever media training he's done over the years. He's a lot more natural in interviews now.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#238

Post by Alifatisk » Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 5:54 PM UTC

namanyayg wrote: post #7

I'm so surprised that Meta is actually leading the open source AI landscape?! I've used llama2 extensively and can't wait to try out llama3 now. I can't believe that it does better than Claude 3 in benchmarks (though admittedly claude 3 seems to have been nerfed recently) I sure do wish there was more info about how its trained and its training data.

Really? Is Llama 2 (70b?) better than Claude 3 sonnet?

Re: Meta Llama 3

#239

Post by jph00 » Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 5:55 PM UTC

simonw wrote: post #204

jph00 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " Nothing about Meta's license is open source. It's a carefully constructed legal agreement intended to prevent any meaningful encroachment by anyone, ever, into any potential Meta profit, and to disavow liability to prevent reputational harm in the case of someone using their freeware for something embarrassing. " You seem to be making claims that have little connection to the actual license. The license states yo…

Those additional restrictions mean it's not an open source license by the OSI definition, which matters if you care about words sometimes having unambiguous meanings. I call models like this "openly licensed" but not "open source licensed".

The OSI definition applies to source code -- I'm not sure the term "open source" makes much sense applied to model weights.

Whilst I agree the term isn't ideal, I don't agree with the other comments in the post I originally replied to.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#240

Post by paxys » Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 5:55 PM UTC

eigenvalue wrote: post #231

I just want to express how grateful I am that Zuck and Yann and the rest of the Meta team have adopted an open approach and are sharing the model weights, the tokenizer, information about the training data, etc. They, more than anyone else, are responsible for the explosion of open research and improvement that has happened with things like llama.cpp that now allow you to run quite decent models locally on consumer h…

You can see from Zuck's interviews that he is still an engineer at heart. Every other big tech company has lost that kind of leadership.