Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open source AI is the path forward

about.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 936 posts

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#411

Post by pmarreck »

mym1990 wrote: post #406
pmarreck wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you run `ollama pull llama3.1:70b`, which you can literally do right now (assuming ollama.com is installed and you're not afraid of the terminal), and it downloads a 40 gigabyte model, that is the weights ! I'd consider the ability to admit when even your most hated adversary is doing something right, a hallmark of acting smarter. Now, they haven't released the training data with the model weights. THAT plus the…

Doing something right vs doing something that seems right but has a hidden self interest that is harmful in the long run can be vastly different things. Often this kind of strategy will allow people to let their guard down, and those same people will get steamrolled down the road, left wondering where it all went wrong. Get smarter.

How in the heck is an open source model that is free and open today going to lock me down, down the line? This is nonsense. You can literally run this model forever if you use NixOS (or never touch your windows, macos or linux install again). Zuck can't come back and molest it. Ever.

The best I can tell is that their self-interest here is more about gathering mindshare. That's not a terrible motive; in fact, that's a pretty decent one. It's not the bully pressing you into their ecosystem with a tit-for-tat; it's the nerd showing off his latest and going "Here. Try it. Join me. Join us."

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#412

Post by henryfjordan »

8note wrote: post #366
Flimm wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. The Llama 3 Community License Agreement is not an open source license. Open source licenses need to meet the criteria of the only widely accepted definition of "open source", and that's the one formulated by the OSI [0]. This license has multiple restrictions on use and distribution which make it not open source. I know Facebook keeps calling this stuff open source, maybe in order to get all the good wi…

Isn't the MIT license the generally accepted "open source" license? It's a community owned term, not OSI owned

There are more licenses than just MIT that are "open source". GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache, some of the Creative Commons licenses, etc. MIT has become the defacto default though

https://opensource.org/license (linking to OSI for the list because it's convenient, not because they get to decide)

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#413

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

8note wrote: post #366
Flimm wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. The Llama 3 Community License Agreement is not an open source license. Open source licenses need to meet the criteria of the only widely accepted definition of "open source", and that's the one formulated by the OSI [0]. This license has multiple restrictions on use and distribution which make it not open source. I know Facebook keeps calling this stuff open source, maybe in order to get all the good wi…

Isn't the MIT license the generally accepted "open source" license? It's a community owned term, not OSI owned

MIT is a permissive open source license, not the open source license.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#414

Post by Suppafly »

vbarrielle wrote: post #381
CamperBob2 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source licenses need to meet the criteria of the only widely accepted definition of "open source", and that's the one formulated by the OSI [0] Who died and made OSI God?

The OSI was created about 20 years ago and defined and popularized the term open source. Their definition has been widely accepted over that period. Recently, companies are trying to market things as open source when in reality, they fail to adhere to the definition. I think we should not let these companies change the meaning of the term, which means it's important to explain every time they try to seem more open th…

>The OSI was created about 20 years ago and defined and popularized the term open source. Their definition has been widely accepted over that period.

It was defined and accepted by the community well before OSI came around though.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#415

Post by [deleted] »

pmarreck wrote: post #399
ladzoppelin wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is forking really possible with an LLM or one the size of future Lama versions, have they even released the weights and everything? Maybe I am just negative about it because I feel Meta is the worst company ever invented and feel this will hurt society in the long run just like Facebook.

When you run `ollama pull llama3.1:70b`, which you can literally do right now (assuming ollama.com is installed and you're not afraid of the terminal), and it downloads a 40 gigabyte model, that is the weights ! I'd consider the ability to admit when even your most hated adversary is doing something right, a hallmark of acting smarter. Now, they haven't released the training data with the model weights. THAT plus the…

[deleted]

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#416

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

mkolodny wrote: post #252
mesebrec wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like saying any python program is open source because the python runtime is open source. Inference code is the runtime; the code that runs the model. Not the model itself.

I disagree. The file I linked to, model.py, contains the Llama 3 model itself. You can use that model with open data to train it from scratch yourself. Or you can load Meta’s open weights and have a working LLM.

> The file I linked to, model.py, contains the Llama 3 model itself.

That makes it source available ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software ), not open source

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#419

Post by apwell23 »

bun_at_work wrote: post #121

Meta makes their money off advertising, which means they profit from attention. This means they need content that will grab attention, and creating open source models that allow anyone to create any content on their own becomes good for Meta. The users of the models can post it to their Instagram/FB/Threads account. Releasing an open model also releases Meta from the burden of having to police the content the model g…

I am not sure I follow this.

1. Is there such a thing as 'attention grabbing AI content' ? Most AI content I see is the opposite of 'attention grabbing'. Kindle store is flooded with this garbage and none of it is particularly 'attention grabbing'.

2. Why would creation of such content, even if it was truly attention grabbing, benefit meta in particular ?

3. How would poliferation of AI content lead to more ad spend in the economy. Ad budgets won't increase because of AI content?

To me this is typical Zuckerberg play. Attach metas name to whatever is trendy at the moment like ( now forgotten) metaverse, cryptocoins and bunch of other failed stuff that was trendy for a second. Meta is NOT an Gen AI company ( or a metaverse company, or a cypto company) like he is scamming ( more like colluding) the market to believe. A mere distraction from slowing user growth on ALL of meta apps.

ppl seem to have just forgotten this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diem_(digital_currency)

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#420

Post by shnock »

baby wrote: post #380
light_triad wrote: post #354

They are positioning themselves as champions of AI open source mostly because they were blindsided by OpenAI, are not in the infra game, and want to commoditize their complements as much as possible. This is not altruism although it's still great for devs and startups. All FB GPU investments is primarily for new AI products "friends", recommendations and selling ads. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy…

Meta does a good thing HN spends a day figuring out how it’s actually bad

It’s not actually bad, OP’s point is that it is not motivated by altruism. An action can be beneficial to the people without that effect being the incentive
Post reply on HN