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

391–400 of 630 posts

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

#391

Post by stale2002 »

applicative wrote: post #259
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But this is an unquestionably good thing right? Their efforts in open AI are by far the best thing Facebook/Meta have ever done. They opened the door to the Chinese, who are doing excellent work, and between them they are preventing the concentration of power and the rise of monopoly pricing. This is enough to absolve them of almost any sin. If I were a utilitarian, I'd unironically be a Zuckerberg fan right now.

The price of Kimi K3 is 'monopolistically' determined by contract with Moonshot. The weights are nominally on Hugging Face but can only be provided under contract with Moonshot, which specifies what the price can be. So it will be with the next Alibaba behemoth and, I would think, all others forever. Soon you will sing songs for the freedom Xi has given us when you read a declaration of 'open weights' ... for a model…

> The Kimi K3 'weights' are an opaque blob that can only be used by contract.

No they are not. You can just ignore the contract. Unless you are a multi-billion dollar company, nobody will notice and you will get away with it.

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

#392

Post by stale2002 »

m4rtink wrote: post #283
subygan wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

do you have a $100 mil worth of compute to train your own version of this? I don't understand what gripe people have with open weight models and wanting it to be purely open source. the training dataset is only going to be a copyrighted set of contents you don't want to touch with a 10 feet pole. let alone have a publicly traded company host it for you, even if they internally are training on it.

You don't get why people would like to be in control of a powerful new technology before they build their stuff arround it ? Sure, there might be currently contraints, but I think it is quite possible training will get optimized over time or crowsourced training can be organized. Without fully end-to-end open source models you are still at the mercy of the model provider to keep providing updates, you have no idea wh…

> You don't get why people would like to be in control of a powerful new technology

You will not have that control. Even if everything were open source. This is because you don't have 100 million dollars of compute.

There, the difference for almost everyone is negligible.

> Without fully end-to-end open source models you are still at the mercy of the model provider to keep providing updates

No. Because you can post train it. And even if you could train the whole thing again, but with slight changes, once again, you aren't spending the hundred mil in compute to change it only a little bit.

Instead, you'll do post training like everyone else does.

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

#393

Post by stale2002 »

a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #269
subygan wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you trying to imply, without making any direct argument, that this is never a useful frame of reference?

In comparison to cloud services, having access to the assembly code can still be quite useful.

This is especially true in the modern era, where you can use AI to much more easily decompile the assemble and reconstruct the source code even.

"Open-assembly" code may be more useful than you might previously have thought, given the ease of recreating the source code or making changes with AI these days.

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

#394

Post by xyproto »

flaburgan wrote: post #340
ternaryoperator wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is also a company with a terrible history regarding open-source. AMD is much better from every point of view.

NVIDIA created quality (but proprietary) drivers for Linux early on, when supporting Linux at all was not a given. They should get at least a tiny bit of credit for this.

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

#395

Post by godelski »

dudefeliciano wrote: post #213
godelski wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's not out of principle. There's a bunch of influencers who go help struggling people. I'm certain the majority of them aren't doing it out of principle, but at the end of the day people still get helped. I'd certainly rather things be done out of principle, but depending on what question you're concerned with that might not matter. There's also a clear hierarchy, but motivations are distinct from effect. The inv…

> those in power will just learn to ignore us. This has already been the case for at least my whole lifetime. So no, I don't feel like praising them when they do one seemingly "good" thing, while simultaneously doing 99 "bad" things.

  > This has already been the case for at least my whole lifetime.
And for my entire lifetime people have acted the way I'm criticizing. So my request is "the status quo isn't working, let's try something different." So I'm not sure what your argument is. Maybe you see things differently than me and there is a time where we were more nuanced and provided signals for these big companies to course correct? I'm not a boomer so maybe things were better back then?

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

#396

Post by staticman2 »

ben_w wrote: post #8
gaigalas wrote: post #6

> Everyone will have an exceptionally capable personal agent that understands you, your goals, and everything you care about. "One machine for every man, woman and children of Zion. Sounds exactly like the thinking of a machine to me." Morpheus It's a joke. OR IS IT? Yes it is, don't worry about it.

Still say Matrix 3 would have been better if the cliffhanger at the end of 2 had been that "the real world" was just another nested layer of the Matrix for those who rejected the primary fiction. I mean, why bother sending an army like that when one tiny robot could carry in a plague? Or, as demonstrated by Smith, when an Agent can virally infect and take over someone's mind while they're connected? Even in 1, Smith…

I think Matrix 3 would have been better if it was more about humans taking control of the Matrix and trying to figure out what a virtual utopia looks like.

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

#397

Post by ekianjo »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #373
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.

> The reason why llama is open source Llama has never been open source. It's source-available, but still proprietary, under terms that (among other things) say "no competing with us, you have to buy a license for that".

There is no source available. Its just open weights.

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

#398

Post by curious_cat_163 »

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…

Thanks!

When is Gemma5 coming out? :-)

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

#399

Post by LeBit »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #336
andy99 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

I don’t understand how you can look at what’s happening right now and call people simply calling for caution “hysterical”

Because when you position yourself saying "people were hysterical", you indirectly categorize yourself as an expert.

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

#400

Post by godelski »

anigbrowl wrote: post #209
godelski wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's not out of principle. There's a bunch of influencers who go help struggling people. I'm certain the majority of them aren't doing it out of principle, but at the end of the day people still get helped. I'd certainly rather things be done out of principle, but depending on what question you're concerned with that might not matter. There's also a clear hierarchy, but motivations are distinct from effect. The inv…

There's a bunch of influencers who go help struggling people. I'm certain the majority of them aren't doing it out of principle, but at the end of the day people still get helped. I don't know for sure, but I suspect it's like a lot of other things on the internet, with a bimodal distribution between people who get helped a lot ('Sir Hype surprises homeless former billionaire with a MILLION DOLLARS!') with many other…

  > I prefer systems with a lot of people who get helped sufficiently to avoid hitting rock bottom in the first place.
Same. I hope you didn't interpret my comment as anything different. My point was that a suboptimal result is better than a negative result. I was *not** saying that a suboptimal result is better than an optimal *result* (that would be quite silly). Let's make a concrete example so there's no ambiguity.

  Scenario:
  There are 100 people starving

  Rankings of preferred situations:
  1) We feel it is morally just to feed everyone AND everyone gets fed
  2) Morals aside, everyone gets fed
  3) We feel it is morally just to feed everyone AND __N__ people get fed (N
Obviously we want #1. #2 is suboptimal but at least everyone gets fed. #3 is the realistic optimal situation because we're often resource constrained. #4 is, well... better than nothing. #5 is indistinguishable from moral cosplaying. #6 is messed up.

We can rank these, right? We can even get more nuanced about the ranking (we can define N!) and argue about the weight of intent vs outcome, but I'm just proposing one ranking for the sake of making my point clear, not proposing one ranking as if it is the absolute objective ranking system and everyone that disagrees is dumb. The rankings are clearly subjective. But what's not subjective is that nuance exists. What is subjective is how we handle that nuance.

  > these undertakings are about promoting the benefactor
So to go back to our example, even though I'd prefer we just feed everybody, I'd prefer somebody getting rich feeding the hungry over not feeding the hungry. I would prefer someone LARPing as an angle conditioned on actually doing "angelic actions" than somebody LARPing as an angle and doing nothing. Of course, I'd prefer a real angle, who wouldn't?!

So I'm quite confused by your comment because it doesn't seem we disagree. Unless if you're saying that #2 in my list is equivalent to #6 (or anything that isn't #1 is equivalent). But I don't think that's what you're saying.

Post reply on HN