Just a quick observation: it seems to not mention commercial companies (or at least be biased against it). I tried executing "what are popular design tools with an infinite canvas" against both meta.ai and OpenAI. OpenAI returned what you would expect, Figma Sketch etc. But MetaAI only returned free/open-source software https://x.com/seveibar/status/1781042926430437404
Meta Llama 3
401–410 of 965 posts
Re: Meta Llama 3
#402Re: Meta Llama 3
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're commoditizing their complement [0][1], inasmuch as LLMs are a complement of social media and advertising (which I think they are). They've made it harder for competitors like Google or TikTok to compete with Meta on the basis of "we have a super secret proprietary AI that no one else has that's leagues better than anything else". If everyone has access to a high quality AI (perhaps not the world's best, but c…
Yes. And, could potentially diminish OpenAI/MS. Once everyone can do it, then OpenAI value would evaporate.
> Once everyone can do it, then OpenAI value would evaporate.
If you take OpenAI's charter statement seriously, the tech will make most humans' (economic) value evaporate for the same reason.
Re: Meta Llama 3
#404Re: Meta Llama 3
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is Meta doing it though? This is an astronomical investment. What do they gain from it?
I think what Meta is doing is really smart. We don't really know where AI will be useful in a business sense yet (the apps with users are losing money) but a good bet is that incumbent platforms stand to benefit the most once these uses are discovered. What Meta is doing is making it easier for other orgs to find those use-cases (and take on the risk) whilst keeping the ability to jump in and capitalize on it when it…
> I don't think any of the big tech leadsership actually beleive in that.
I think Altman actually believes that, but I'm not sure about any of the others.
Musk seems to flitter between extremes, "summoning the demon" isn't really compatible with suing OpenAI for failing to publish Lemegeton Clavicula Samaltmanis*.
> I also think that deep down a lot of the AI safety crowd love solving hard problems and stock options.
Probably at least one of these for any given person.
But that's why capitalism was ever a thing: money does motivate people.
Re: Meta Llama 3
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure Yann is not involved in this - Meta has a separate GenAI group headed up by Ahmad Al-Dahle (@Ahmad_Al_Dahle).
Yann Lecun's name is listed in the model card: https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/MODEL_CARD.md
There's a lot of people on that list!
LeCun is head of FAIR (FaceBook AI Research), which is a different internal organization than the GenAI group responsible for these Llama LLMs.
Re: Meta Llama 3
#407https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/LICENSE Llama is not open source. It's corporate freeware with some generous allowances. Open source licenses are a well defined thing. Meta marketing saying otherwise doesn't mean they get to usurp the meaning of a well understood and commonly used understanding of the term "open source." https://opensource.org/license Nothing about Meta's license is open source. It's a…
Yes or no, do you conceed that for almost everyone, none of what you said matters, and almost everyone can use llama 3 for their use case, and that basically nobody is going to have to worry about being sued, other than maybe like Google, or equivalent? You are using all these scary words without saying the obvious, which is that for almost everyone, none of that matters.
I don't support GP's claims, but you have to realize that you're "almost everyone" up until you build something very successful with lots of capital at stake, and then you definitely become "someone special" and have to think ahead about how the licenses of your models impact you.
Of course random individuals don't care much about the licenses on their personal AI projects. But if you intend to grow something significant, you better read the label from the start.
Re: Meta Llama 3
#408Maybe a side-note or off-topic. But am I the only one that's shocked/confused why these giant tech companies have huge models, so much compute to run them on, and they still can't get certain basic things right. Something as simple, for Facebook, as detecting a fake profile that's super-obvious to any human that's been on the net for any appreciable amount of time.
If you’re measured on number of users, why would you remove lots of them?
Re: Meta Llama 3
#409https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/LICENSE Llama is not open source. It's corporate freeware with some generous allowances. Open source licenses are a well defined thing. Meta marketing saying otherwise doesn't mean they get to usurp the meaning of a well understood and commonly used understanding of the term "open source." https://opensource.org/license Nothing about Meta's license is open source. It's a…
Yes or no, do you conceed that for almost everyone, none of what you said matters, and almost everyone can use llama 3 for their use case, and that basically nobody is going to have to worry about being sued, other than maybe like Google, or equivalent? You are using all these scary words without saying the obvious, which is that for almost everyone, none of that matters.
Would you then say that in general Open Source doesn't matter for almost everyone? Most people running Linux aren't serving 700 million customers or operating military killbots with it after all.
Re: Meta Llama 3
#410I just want to express how grateful I am that Zuck and Yann and the rest of the Meta team have adopted an open approach and are sharing the model weights, the tokenizer, information about the training data, etc. They, more than anyone else, are responsible for the explosion of open research and improvement that has happened with things like llama.cpp that now allow you to run quite decent models locally on consumer h…
Call me cynical, but it was the only way not to be outplayed by OpenAI and to compete with Google, etc.