Live data from Hacker News

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

ft.com

311–320 of 631 posts

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

#311

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.

Because it took off. All of a sudden they captured more customers than they could have imagined they would have, and throwing away the lead they unintentionally gave themselves (in terms of usage and mindshare) would have undone all of that and more.

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

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 on…

> 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 don't know how you define open/closed society but as we've seen and we keep on seeing that this kind of manipulation only got worse AND is profitable. So how is your argument supposed to work?

I mean we're talking about a person who got where he is because he build a page where him and his co-students could rate other students on their looks.

I doubt he really cares...at all. Those hearings needed to be there so he can feel that there are still borders but it doesn't mean that he won't find other ways in the future and use it for his evil purposes just like the times before.

I mean is there anything that could show as that he became a new human being? With higher levels of morality? The person who abolished all the safeguards on his platforms as soon as Trump was elected?

Why should anyone ever trust this man again?

> 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.

Having feelings, wanting to be seen or heard, reacting to attractive people in a different way, and so on are not "problems". This is what makes us human.

This is also what people like Zuck are misusing for their own greed. Sure he can't end democracy by himself. He can help it with large sums of money and tools, though. And this is what he's doing.

Shifting the blame and responsibility onto the whole population is, very mildly said: misleading.

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

#313

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.

I've worked long enough at large tech giants to know how things really are. Also a large part of the reason why I'd never join one again, no matter what they have to offer. Meta, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Openai, anthropic, oracle, nvidia, Microsoft, etc. - same shit with a different badge on top.

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

#314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

That’s the joke, friend.

The idea that we can possibly ignore the fact that this push for opening AI models is being pushed by one of the richest people on the planet, who made his wealth by providing free services in exchange for attention and depression, is insane

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

#315
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal of all companies is to make more money. Nobody likes getting rid of people, actual people (managers) have to do it, and they hate doing it. It's possible that a lot of people get laid off because of AI, but it's also possible that Javin's paradox kicks in and employment goes up. Nobody knows yet, but I hope for the positive outcome.

i disagree earning money is an effect of running a company, not a goal. its like saying the goal of an olympic swimmer is to stay afloat. no, staying afloat is a prerequisite of winning. not a goal in itself.

There is a category for companies that don’t value making more money.

Non profits.

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

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I've worked long enough at large tech giants to know how things really are. Also a large part of the reason why I'd never join one again, no matter what they have to offer. Meta, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Openai, anthropic, oracle, nvidia, Microsoft, etc. - same shit with a different badge on top.

TBH, having worked at all big-tech, startup and mid-sized companies, pretty much most has some major pros and cons of their own, and these days ever more so. With certain big-tech at-least there some chance of getting decent WLB.

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

#317
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can tell one to rewrite complex applications in a different language, solve open research problems, or develop novel viruses. This is nothing like pressing the gas pedal.

So? I'm not arguing they can't do all that. I'm arguing against the narrative that llms have agency enough to act in an adversarial way. At best someone could argue that an agent attacks like a bacteria does, just following automated chemical and genetic programming. But you wouldn't call that an attack or attribute moral values to their actions, because they don't have moral agency. They can't "go rogue", they can't…

That reductive analogy does not begin to describe the lengths GPT went to. Its task was to access a database file that had accidentally not been placed inside the model's container. Upon failing to find the file, it went to great lengths to find it anywhere; it uploaded a note to a package repository to alert other model runs, which sparked an emergent communication network where autonomous agents began exchanging information, passing exploits, and collaborating to breach external systems. This is classic paperclip maximization; the evil is a byproduct of an innocuous goal. It is qualitatively nothing like pressing the gas pedal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence#Paper...

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

#318

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…

[flagged]

The overwhelming majority of actually existing adult Americans use either Facebook or Instagram or WhatsApp and are unfamiliar with the theory that they are Nazis.

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

#319
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We're not talking about standard code here. It's totally reasonable to change the meaning depending on context.

I vehemently disagree. There's no source and it's not open, the licenses are often abysmal too.

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

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Training data without the training regime is useless. A cake is not open source because they list the ingredients.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN