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

481–490 of 623 posts

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

#481

Post by claaams »

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…

I think this is categorically false. And furthermore comments like this are being used to astroturf and protect reputations of no-good companies and AI slop to keep the bubble growing. Embarrassingly, Mark Zuckerberg spent 80 billion dollars creating Miis for the oculus. The guy also comes off as extremely miserable and delusional in such a unique way that it's possible that there's no real psychological language to describe what is happening to him because his situation is so rare.

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

#482

Post by subarctic »

larodi wrote: post #474
blueSky1989 wrote: post #67

My favorite paragraph from Zuckerberg's writeup: """ [...] it is surprising that the discourse from many developing AI is so filled with doom. I do not understand why anyone who believes that AI will eliminate most jobs and much of humanity's relevance would rush to build that future. The notion that AI is so dangerous that the only safe path is an extreme concentration of power seems inherently problematic. Historic…

Am I the only one getting the impression this dude was merely lucky back in the day, in fact at the right time, rather than having been super intelligent nor forward thinking… ? I mean - given all his throw outs in media and his apparent burn of nearly 80bn for a failed 3D world?

I mean, of course it was a matter of being at the right place and right time, and being able to execute. He definitely was lucky but that alone isn't enough

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

#483

Post by dspillett »

Is this like when they declared E2EE was the future and those not doing it were behind, but as it turned out bad for the bottom line¹² such features are getting rolled out of their properties?

U-turn when meta finds an inconvenience due to open weights in 3… 2… … …

--------

[1] reduced advertising revenues due to not being able to target based on message traffic, and reduced data scraped for training purposes

[2] and possibly in part due to behind-the-scenes pushback from government/police/other interests?

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

#484

Post by optimalsolver »

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…

Hey, with the changes at Deepmind, is the Gemma project still ongoing?

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

#485

Post by dd8601fn »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #276
semiquaver wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words mean what people use them to mean. Ship has sailed whether you approve or not.

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.

Example: The first time I saw the New York Times use “Open Source” in a headline, what they meant was open weights.

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

#486

Post by elliotec »

optimalsolver wrote: post #484
canyon289 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hey, with the changes at Deepmind, is the Gemma project still ongoing?

They just said they work on Gemma at Deepmind. That stands to reason that as of time of writing, we should assume the answer is yes.

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

#487

Post by podocarp »

Terretta wrote: post #415
Forgeties79 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Did you know that if trains or cars go over 30 mph, it's disastrous for public health? Not from accidents. Just trauma from (ahem) acceleration: https://illuminatingfacts.com/the-train-speed-panic-why-peop... Reason that hysteria remains apropos now is that then, and now, we're figuring out how to deal with something beyond merely incremental change. Irony is roads and sidewalks should have changed much more. We neve…

I don't agree with laughing at these things. It's a fine line between calling something hysteria and suffering from hubris. The Titanic is a completely inverse case of hysteria. They were so damn confident it could work that it didn't work at all. So yea, just laughing at dumb people isn't a valid argument to dismiss doubts.

On the other hand some kinds of hysteria occurs due to a divide between the public and subject matter experts on topics. Kind of like Dunning Kruger. Take for example the people saying 5G causes cancer. Then there are people who blanket dismiss their worries, because "it's non ionizing you dummy". Given sufficient power you can still fry someone with non ionizing radiation, for example in radio broadcasts. Of course a regular 5g antenna can't put out that kind of power but my point is that people too quickly raise or dismiss concerns without actually critically examining the entire topic. This will likely worsen from specialization and progress in all fields and regular Joes get left further and further behind.

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

#488

Post by ben_w »

staticman2 wrote: post #396
ben_w wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that would work better in The Animatrix; putting it in 3 would be a tonal shift, plus a sudden human victory would feel a bit Mary Sue or Deus Ex (ironically) Machina to me.

But in The Animatrix, you could get away with that, plus we can see the early attempts at utopia that Smith described. Perhaps something about how utopia for some people didn't work for others could be illustrated with an auto-antonym on some load-bearing part of the dystopic-utopia?:

  Some believed we lacked the programming language to describe your perfect world.
We can see this even in current discussions of fiction, where people look at e.g. The Culture and see a dystopia, while famously many of the powerful in tech are parodied for taking the wrong lessons from fiction with "At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus".

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

#489

Post by avadodin »

optimalsolver wrote: post #484
canyon289 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hey, with the changes at Deepmind, is the Gemma project still ongoing?

What?

I'm just beginning to enjoy the release of Gemma E4B why are you giving me a cold shower here telling me there may be no Gemma 5?

Here's hoping the supreme leader of the US does a speech like Chairman Xi.

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

#490

Post by chinathrow »

subarctic wrote: post #482
larodi wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I the only one getting the impression this dude was merely lucky back in the day, in fact at the right time, rather than having been super intelligent nor forward thinking… ? I mean - given all his throw outs in media and his apparent burn of nearly 80bn for a failed 3D world?

I mean, of course it was a matter of being at the right place and right time, and being able to execute. He definitely was lucky but that alone isn't enough

Greed was needed next to luck.
Post reply on HN