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

231–240 of 631 posts

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

#231

Post by Barrin92 »

Krasnol wrote: post #145
baron816 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> But I think the legacy media deserves 100x that criticism for doing the same thing. This comparison is absurd. "Legacy media" wouldn't even be technically able to cause so much damage because they send one message to everybody while meta aims their messages and members at specific other members of their platform. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat... https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-57…

>Zuck built an empire purpose built to damage democracy and the mental health of children to suicidal levels, for money.

That may have been the result of those platforms and he profited from it but I doubt he purpose built them to that end, because his businesses do profit from an open society, not a closed one. I think if he could snap his fingers and not have teenagers lose their sanity on the site he'd do it if only for PR reasons and to avoid congressional hearings.

I don't like him as a person but most of what happened on those sites we did to ourselves. I don't see him anywhere close to his techno-feudal peers who explicitly seem to seek out to destroy most institutions.

In a democracy, you, I and we are the pronouns when it comes to who is responsible. One greedy nerd can't end a democracy of people who have some degree of virtue, education, temperance and civil sense in them. If that happens you already had much bigger problems.

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

#232

Post by KPGv2 »

> they've done enough good

well minus driving teenagers to suicide by helping advertisers target girls with poor body image issues, helping launch psyops campaigns to destroy democracy, helping fascist regimes murder their citizens for wrong think, etc.

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

#233

Post by kriro »

jmyeet wrote: post #191
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…

There's a saying "open source is for losers". What it means is that winners in a market don't want open source. The losers in a market push for it to commodify it eliminate the winner's advantage. Now some of these tech companies open source various libraries but none of it is core to their business. It's marketing, essentially. Or they're trying to get free labor from the community. Google had protocol buffers and S…

Where does this supposed saying come from? All I hear is PostgreSQL is the database intelligent people use, Git or GTFO and I don't even know what a closed source programming language is. Apache and nginx, Linux, DNS infrastructure.

In an agentic world, why do I want closed source software that my agent can't adjust and adapt to my needs for...anything?

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

#235

Post by KPGv2 »

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…

> as someone who wants to see AGI happen FASTER

I think you'll find very few people here sympathetic to misanthropic (ba dum tss) goals like yours. It's evident at this point that AGI will destroy economies, democracy, and upward mobility. There is no Star Trek future. There is only an Elysium future with AGI.

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

#236

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

FireBeyond wrote: post #154
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sarah Wynn-Williams book contains a number of implausible anecdotes which people repeat as gospel truth even though they have not AFAIK been corroborated. I am pretty skeptical, for example, that Sheryl Sandberg punished Ms. Wynn-Williams for not getting in bed with her.

And yet Sandberg has not sued for defamation…

Why would she want to? Attempting to prove that private conversations did not happen as alleged is always a frustrating uphill battle, and winning the lawsuit wouldn’t stop people on social media from saying they think the court got it wrong and Sandberg really did do it. Wynn-Williams is already not allowed to repeat the allegations right now due to her case with Meta.

A lawsuit might get the relevant passage yanked from the book, I suppose.

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

#237

Post by aesbetic »

bevr1337 wrote: post #227
Cookingboy wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you can doubt the motivation of the speaker, but remember the validity of the argument itself is orthogonal to the speaker’s identity.

> the validity of the argument itself is orthogonal to the speaker’s identity. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Are you actually the Big Bad Wolf? That sounds like something the Big Bad Wolf would say.

using an ad hominem to attack the concept of ad hominem lol

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

#238

Post by dozerly »

xandrius wrote: post #228
bushido wrote: post #226

I think something that doesn't get said enough is Meta did, albeit intentionally kick off the origin of the open source race back in 2023 with the release of llama. I'm not a big fan of meta in general, but they've done enough good, and it's possible that it was intentional as well. I don't know, I wasn't in the rooms, and I think it's worth giving them some reasonable doubt. No one is purely good, and no one is pure…

Enough good? You are joking, right? They also kick off a ton of other nefarious things we are still paying for.

Yea this has to be a joke. They are one of the worst, no-good companies of the modern day and age

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

#239

Post by axegon_ »

bushido wrote: post #226

I think something that doesn't get said enough is Meta did, albeit intentionally kick off the origin of the open source race back in 2023 with the release of llama. I'm not a big fan of meta in general, but they've done enough good, and it's possible that it was intentional as well. I don't know, I wasn't in the rooms, and I think it's worth giving them some reasonable doubt. No one is purely good, and no one is pure…

That's simply not true. The reason why llama is open source is simply because it got leaked, then llama.cpp was the real game changer which was built from the ground up in depressingly short amount of time. Meta had no choice but to take the L and "support" the open source community. The angry "I-hate-you-and-I-hope-you-die" kind of support.

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

#240

Post by mrkeen »

a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #170
subygan wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we're calling it openweights now. what is a logical push to have a completely new paradigm be compared with traditional software binaries?

Check the phrase I quoted. Anyways, I guess OSX is open assembly?

Checked.

  The more open source software out there the better. And the more open weights or even over source AI stuff the better too right?
Post reply on HN