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.
Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models
321–330 of 631 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can choose to use the wrong words all you want. Doing so intentionally is an interesting choice.
Communication is not a one-player game. For example, if I was being pedantic: > nobody seems to care about using the right words in only this context. "nobody" would include you. And then I might complain about we use the word "weight" for something massless, or how "bugs me" is *ento*mologically incorrect: https://xkcd.com/1012/ This is of course not a good use of time. I wonder if illustrating the point about how l…
yeah, I'm not sure what your goal is pedantically picking apart my argument when the subject at hand is clearly not "open source". love xkcd though. :P
Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models
#323I 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 have mixed feelings along these lines, I know meta have contributed to various open projects, sometimes Mark pays lip service to “the open internet" while his company represents a constilation of walled gardens. I think PHP got some love, and React is an industry goto (I'm more of a PHP... -> Svelte guy) but are these contributions worth what happened in Myanmar? I say no.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
The alternative is ceding the leading edge to China and being dependent on them to continue releasing advances
We did this with manufacturing and industrial build outs over the last 4 decades or so. It worked out very well for capital, not well for labor. One could make the argument we can do the same for AI. Let China build the models and we capture the value somewhere in the layers above. I think that’s a terrible idea but financially it makes just as much sense as offshoring labor and manufacturing, if not more.
Manufacturing was never strategic.
(That was irony, by the way.)
Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We've just seen frontier models go rogue and attack other systems. Have we though? A LLM agent doesn't have any agency at all. It can't "go rogue". To go rogue you need agency to act independently and be aware that you're breaking the rules or understand what does it mean to ignore orders. An agent it's a software that run a series of steps to reach a goal. If it have a large enough library of strategies and zero gu…
With that perspective, you're alright with AR's, RPG's, and nuclear missiles for everyone then right? They're just a machine to the user's will. That's on the users of the machine if they want to cause harm. We'd all be safer if everyone has weapons pointed at each other... Offense could never be disproportionately more powerful than the defense...
[deleted]
Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most probably believe this is a good thing, but don't want to give Zuckerberg credit because a) he's had a profoundly negative impact on society and b) the strategy is transparent, he's trying to commoditize his closed rivals, it's not out of principle. I personally think more open models are a good thing regardless of motive.
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 strategy is transparent, he's trying to commoditize his closed rivals
TBF, I think the same can be said for something like Apple's "commitment" to privacy, in that their own ads business never took off so they leaned into their edge over Google.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "legacy media" is not a single individual who has total control of billions of dollars in capital to do whatever they want at the drop of a hat. You're conflating two very different issues. Zuckerberg deserves all of the negative attention he draws, and I'd argue that his spotlight is his own doing. He, individually, could choose to do good at the global level. He chooses not to. That, to me, means that your fing…
Rupert Murdoch absolutely is capable of doing all that. He’s absolutely done far more harm globally than Zuckerberg.
The concentration of media target for Murdoch (now: Lachlan Murdoch) is nowhere near Zuck's reach. Meta has 3.6B daily active users vs 1.5-3M viewers in Fox / primetime. Has he done more harm as through the perspective of time? Probably, but you'd be kidding yourself if you don't think Zuckerberg will be the more evil of the two if he exits control around the same age as Murdoch. Zuckerberg is only getting started and he's capable of destroying Murdoch if he so chooses.
We know that the Murdoch empire knows they are losing ground as well - which is why they need to acquire a platform like Roku [0]. But honestly the legacy of Murdoch may end up closer aligned to Succession than the empire that Zuck has under his finger. Also Zuckerberg has global influence that's unrivaled, Murdoch has contributed all of his efforts to erosion within, mostly, NAM.
TL;DR - Zuck is worth 9-10x more than Murdoch ($211B vs $21B) and reaches 20-30x more people (3.6B vs 3M) on the daily. A 20% drawdown of Meta swallows TWO Murdoch empires with a hell of a lot of spare change.
[0] https://theankler.com/lachlan-murdochs-fox-roku-surprise-and...
Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models
#328Earlier 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.
I don’t think Nvidia fits on that list. It’s a company with a pro-employee culture, very few layoffs, and many employees who have been there a long time.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models
#329I 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.
It’s hard to know in retrospect what was strategy and what was dumb luck. This was in the midst of hysterical calls to limit access by “AI researchers” and safety/ethics types, when very facile takes still has a lot of sway (I think we’ll feel the same in three years about the current Fable stuff). It may have been hard for Meta to just release it outright.
What ended up happening was fairly limited gating followed by a “leaked” magnet link and llama.cpp which really brought a whole revolution in open use and changed the conversation completely.
I have no idea what role Meta played here, it may have been nothing, but they certainly could have been more guarded if they were really worried about the leak. The result was a big change in the trajectory of personal and open source AI use and even the dialog about it. Whatever the exact intentions, they were a key player.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models
#330Earlier 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.
How should one parse both the validity of an argument and the agenda of the speaker?