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

261–270 of 631 posts

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

#261

Post by cma »

axegon_ wrote: post #239
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.

> The reason why llama is open source is simply because it got leaked

It arguably didn't really get leaked, and they had the .edu req mainly for fair use education exemption when legality of models was much more uncertain.

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

#262

Post by kube-system »

moomin wrote: post #22

The truth is all frontier models are closed. This isn't even an open source vs open weights thing. Even if you accepted that open weights are "open" the capital requirements for running your own Kimi 3 model are significant. It's not like gcc, where the binary just works well enough on random hardware.

"Open" in regards to software typically refers to a combination of public availability and shared legal rights to use the software. It almost never refers to hardware requirements.

There's something to be said for making these technologies equitable to those with less resources, but that's due to the cost of hardware and the nature of how transformer models scale... not really anything to do with "open"ness.

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

#263

Post by trolleski »

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…

???

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

#264

Post by pc86 »

24t wrote: post #248
pc86 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can tell how intellectually honest someone is when someone they hate makes a good point. It's possible to dislike (or even hate) Zuckerberg and understand that he's making a good point for selfish motives, and still want that thing as well. Instead you see several comments here twisting themselves into pretzels trying to explain how ackshually open models are bad now. I don't care if this helps Zuckerberg because…

The model release is nice. I won't sing their praises for it because that plays into the long term strategy of a company I despise. Is that intellectually dishonest?

It depends on if you can say things like "it is good they are supporting this" or "I'm glad they're doing this" or "good for them" without having to couch it in a bunch of stuff about how terrible they are.

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

#265

Post by jmyeet »

kriro wrote: post #233
jmyeet wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To be clear, the saying is about how companies treat open source, not the intrinsic value of open source to end users (individuals or companies). I'm very much a fan. The point is that profit-seeking only push for open source when they're losing.

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

#266

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

munk-a wrote: post #189
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always hope that people who write things like this are considerably younger than I, because as someone who experienced "legacy media" for decades before the Internet was widely available, the idea that "they’re not doing anything more evil than what was already the norm" is complete, total, 100% bullshit. Yes, "clickbait" was a thing even before people were clicking. "Yellow journalism" helped start the Spanish-Ame…

There were some brief excellent years in the nascent days of the blogosphere where stories that CNN would miss (especially stories about marginalized groups) managed to get widespread attention and the compensation to journalists held up. But where we are today in terms of news compared to the 00s or 90s (even with all the retrospective knowledge about journalism catastrophes like NYT's coverage of the Iraq War) is s…

> Journalism, if done correctly, is unprofitable - the times in American history it has thrived, imo, have been when journalists have been patronized by people willing to trade money for prestige.

I agree with the first part of that, but not necessarily the second. For a very long time in America good journalism was essentially paid for by classified ads. They were really two separate (but obviously related) businesses. Journalism could be more "walled off" from the money making side of things since classified ads were bringing in money hand over fist.

The Internet decimated the classified ads business, so now you see more sensational stories that try to make money in their own right. Even on the CNN website, there are ads at the bottom that are confusingly meant to look like stories. They're often embarrassingly dumb (literal "the one trick doctors don't want you to know" type of stuff), but I think that's what it's come to for news businesses to survive.

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

#267

Post by greyw »

root-parent wrote: post #13

Is going to take it one day at a time, on being a less evil bilionaire :-) "Zuckerberg faces questions over why superyacht reportedly declined to help stranded boat" - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/09/zuckerberg-s...

There are many many more things wrong with Zuckerberg than wasting my (our?) attention on ragebait nothingburgers like these.

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

#268

Post by nradov »

mirekrusin wrote: post #249
nradov wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a non sequitur . While the frontier LLMs are quite useful for many tasks there's no reliable evidence that scaling them up will ever produce a true AGI. More likely some other fundamental research breakthroughs will be needed, and those breakthroughs won't necessarily come from the current leading companies. I doubt that more money would be necessary or even helpful in that.

There is no reliable evidence they won’t. Look at rate of progress, not today’s capabilities alone. The gap is shrinking, many tasks are already performed at super human level. Humanity doesn’t have monopoly on intelligence - it seems obvious to me it’ll be reached and surpassed without hard upper limit.

OK well then let's check back here in a few years to see if any of them managed to build an AGI. Until then it's just idle speculation. Anything could happen ... or not.

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

#269

Post by a2ff6eeb0 »

subygan wrote: post #252
a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

is it not open assembly? open weight models are better than open-assembly binaries (as you put it) because models are grown like plants, you can shape the open-weight model in a direction you want by feeding it more data and compute (aka finetuning). which is something that is impossible in a binary. embrace the new paradigm and it's tradeoffs. without scoffing at semantics and criticising from an armchair.

I'd encourage you to start referring to it that way,then.

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

#270

Post by s0ss »

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…

This is not open source; you mean open weight. These models are the antithesis of FOSS. Is it better than hosted models from other big labs? Yes, but not by much from a freedom perspective. especially considering the texts these were trained on. Grumble grumble, these details matter.
Post reply on HN