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

271–280 of 631 posts

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

#271

Post by kamranjon »

canyon289 wrote: post #247
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…

Disclaimer, I work on Gemma and open models at Deepmind and the opinions here are my own There were open models from EleutherAI (GPT-Neo), Google Brain (T5X, Bert), and HuggingFace was promoting open models (and others doing open work I haven't listed here) all prior to 2023 and the big Chatgpt moment. https://github.com/EleutherAI/gpt-neo/releases https://github.com/google-research/bert https://github.com/google-res…

I honestly think of the T5 model family to sort of be the real beginning of this open model craze - I know BERT was already popular for classification etc, but T5 was the first sort of generally useful model, was exceptionally simple to fine-tune, and is still in use today (t5 base is still averaging over a million downloads a month on huggingface), has tons of variants and sort of kickstarted this whole community. US labs get a lot of flack but Google has been super supportive and open in a lot of ways that has pushed this whole endeavor forward, even if I feel like they've sort of declined in transparency in recent years with their open models.

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

#272

Post by semiquaver »

s0ss wrote: post #253
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…

Open source != open weight. Big difference and it bugs me that nobody seems to care about using the right words in only this context.

Words mean what people use them to mean. Ship has sailed whether you approve or not.

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

#273

Post by reducesuffering »

dismalaf wrote: post #129
reducesuffering wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But this is an unquestionably good thing right? We've just seen frontier models go rogue and attack other systems. Do you think it's an unquestionable good to provide everyone with an AR? What about nuclear weapons? This OpenAI/Huggingface incident, but everywhere and far worse soon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87DyyMV0kCY

> We've just seen frontier models go rogue and attack other systems. Do you think it's an unquestionable good to provide everyone with an AR? What about nuclear weapons? Lol. Not gonna lie, it feels like bullshit. OpenAI and Anthropic have been begging for regulatory capture for years, feels like a stunt to try forcing the government's hand.

In 2015, about a year before ever founding OpenAI, Sam Altman wrote:

"Development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity. There are other threats that I think are more certain to happen (for example, an engineered virus with a long incubation period and a high mortality rate) but are unlikely to destroy every human in the universe in the way that SMI could."

https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1

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

#274

Post by amelius »

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…

I think it's a case of "commoditize your completement" ...

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

#275

Post by andy99 »

forestrywat wrote: post #5

Is this "I'm losing so I think we should change the rules"? Because it seems like that.

It’s “I’m losing so I’ll try something else”. It’s what any rational actor in a market economy would do, and it should be encouraged. “I’m winning so I’ll pull up the ladder behind me” is what we want to avoid.

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

#276

Post by JumpCrisscross »

semiquaver wrote: post #272
s0ss wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source != open weight. Big difference and it bugs me that nobody seems to care about using the right words in only this context.

Words mean what people use them to mean. Ship has sailed whether you approve or not.

Yup. An extremist wing of the FOSS movement ceded the debate early on by trying to insist open source required full access to the training data. Philosophically, not wrong. But practically fucked, so the word evolved.

Within tech circles, open weight != open source. Outside them, they’re synonyms.

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

#277

Post by s0ss »

semiquaver wrote: post #272
s0ss wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source != open weight. Big difference and it bugs me that nobody seems to care about using the right words in only this context.

Words mean what people use them to mean. Ship has sailed whether you approve or not.

You can choose to use the wrong words all you want. Doing so intentionally is an interesting choice.

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

#278

Post by cush »

Cookingboy wrote: post #216
cush wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sh…

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

No it absolutely is not. In a perfectly logical frictioness-plane world it might be true, but this is the real world. The entire premise of open models is predicated on the fact that Meta is planning on supplying free and equitable inference and services around it. It’s only true if you assume Meta keeps their end of the deal and doesn’t do the thing they’ve been doing over and over and over for decades and turning you into the product

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

#279

Post by cmiles8 »

If you believe, as an increasing number of folks do, that LLMs are basically commoditized at this point or will be soon then there really isn’t a path forward for non open models.

There simply isn’t any value in the models and only in the compute to run them and potentially some higher-order coordination layers.

That’s very bad for the big model labs that banked their future on the opposite, but there just doesn’t seem to be a viable path forward on that approach anymore.

Meta hasn’t been the best global citizen for most of its life, but there may be some mild redemption if it becomes a source of strong open models.

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

#280

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

tehlike wrote: post #243
axegon_ wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you think they continued to do it? Ps: I work for meta, but not in AI related orgs.

It’s obvious? They still hate us and hope we die… at least every movement they make seems like that.

I kid. I’m all for meta releasing more open weight models.

I mean… I’m also 1000% certain that China is going to undercut whatever they can do if even not a technology reason but a legal reason. I’ve seen some wild stuff posted that has been made with Minimax… things a US company could never allow to happen.

Post reply on HN