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

Sharing new research, models, and datasets from Meta FAIR

ai.meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: Sharing new research, models, and datasets from Meta FAIR

#51

Post by tzs »

SideQuark wrote: post #48
almostgotcaught wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

everyone that has responded so far has it wrong (naively so). FB sells ad space on several apps. those apps needs people on them in order for the ad space to be worth anything. people, in turn, need content to attract them to the apps. so it's simple: enable people/companies/whomever to generate tons of content for cheap and consequently share it on the apps. that's it.

Except giving out the tools makes easier for competitors like TikTok to do the same, drawing revenue away from meta. So that’s not it. Naively so.

Couldn't the same argument be made for all kinds of things companies have made open? Some examples:

• Tesla gave away its EV patents.

• Pixar and DreamWorks have both open-sourced some of their tools, including tools used to make some of their best works. For example DreamWorks' MoonRay renderer has been used on everything they have done since "How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World", including "Puss in Boots: The Last Wish" and "The Wild Robot", and will be used on their upcoming films.

• Facebook open-sourced React.

• Google open-sourced Chromium.

Re: Sharing new research, models, and datasets from Meta FAIR

#52

Post by refulgentis »

sangnoir wrote: post #43
refulgentis wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think this the wrong / older article - when I click the link, this is twitter's hosted Flux model making pictures of Kamala and Trump flying into the world trade center and Trump on a surfboard with busty cat girls. The X.ai one launched this week

X hosted a white-label Flux model for a while, and freely admitted so .

Correct, that's how I know :)

Re: Sharing new research, models, and datasets from Meta FAIR

#53

Post by bee_rider »

tzs wrote: post #51
SideQuark wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except giving out the tools makes easier for competitors like TikTok to do the same, drawing revenue away from meta. So that’s not it. Naively so.

Couldn't the same argument be made for all kinds of things companies have made open? Some examples: • Tesla gave away its EV patents. • Pixar and DreamWorks have both open-sourced some of their tools, including tools used to make some of their best works. For example DreamWorks' MoonRay renderer has been used on everything they have done since "How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World", including "Puss in Boots: Th…

In the case of Tesla, if you want to sell cars, you benefit from open up your charging tech, right?

Re: Sharing new research, models, and datasets from Meta FAIR

#54

Post by bee_rider »

puttycat wrote: post #12

Can someone explain how watermarking AI videos voluntarily helps make AI safer?

How much does it take to train a model at this point? I’d tend to expect that it’ll be in range of any major state or most oligarchs in the next couple years (if it isn’t already). So, making it is probably best of everybody understands the watermarking to be voluntary. Images and videos aren’t worth the bits they are printed in at this point, as evidence of anything in particular.

Re: Sharing new research, models, and datasets from Meta FAIR

#55

Post by mttddd »

SideQuark wrote: post #48
almostgotcaught wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

everyone that has responded so far has it wrong (naively so). FB sells ad space on several apps. those apps needs people on them in order for the ad space to be worth anything. people, in turn, need content to attract them to the apps. so it's simple: enable people/companies/whomever to generate tons of content for cheap and consequently share it on the apps. that's it.

Except giving out the tools makes easier for competitors like TikTok to do the same, drawing revenue away from meta. So that’s not it. Naively so.

the tools but not necessarily the data, presumably they have internally trained versions

Re: Sharing new research, models, and datasets from Meta FAIR

#56

Post by mttddd »

almostgotcaught wrote: post #40
ks2048 wrote: post #24

When I wonder about the business behind Meta doing this, I see they have $70B in cash, so giving a bunch of AI experts hundreds of millions is pocket change.

everyone that has responded so far has it wrong (naively so). FB sells ad space on several apps. those apps needs people on them in order for the ad space to be worth anything. people, in turn, need content to attract them to the apps. so it's simple: enable people/companies/whomever to generate tons of content for cheap and consequently share it on the apps. that's it.

content but also better ad targetting by better understanding all of the content that users post

Re: Sharing new research, models, and datasets from Meta FAIR

#57

Post by mupuff1234 »

bubaumba wrote: post #29
ponector wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They still ruin society with the Facebook, no matter how much good they do with LLM.

Like it or not Meta is a major player in AI world with its free models and tools. As for social impact of the rest it's debatable. I personally don't have active social accounts, and not sure this is good.

Like it or not the social impact isn't really debatable, there's a decent amount of evidence, enough for the surgeon general Dr to issue a warning:

https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/05/23/surgeon-general-is...

Re: Sharing new research, models, and datasets from Meta FAIR

#58

Post by UltraSane »

idle_zealot wrote: post #45
UltraSane wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like all tools it can be used for good and evil. It could be installed directly in cameras to sign videos. And people with the power to turn it off could make AI fake videos that much more believable.

I would make the argument that these AI safety initiatives yield messaging that muddles and confuses the public on the simple fact that they should not, under any circumstances, use a video or image as proof or assume its veracity. When I tell someone this it is common for them to come back with something like "aren't they working on things to detect if a video is fake?" I think this idea, that video content can stil…

"they should not, under any circumstances, use a video or image as proof or assume its veracity"

This is just silly. Courts never assume the validity of evidence. It is actually assumed to be invalid unless it can be proved to have not been tampered with. Photos have been able to be edited for over 100 years but they are still used as evidence. The person who took the photo will sign an affidavit and or testify in court that it is real. And AI videos are going to be easily detectable for a long time.

Re: Sharing new research, models, and datasets from Meta FAIR

#59

Post by almostgotcaught »

SideQuark wrote: post #48
almostgotcaught wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

everyone that has responded so far has it wrong (naively so). FB sells ad space on several apps. those apps needs people on them in order for the ad space to be worth anything. people, in turn, need content to attract them to the apps. so it's simple: enable people/companies/whomever to generate tons of content for cheap and consequently share it on the apps. that's it.

Except giving out the tools makes easier for competitors like TikTok to do the same, drawing revenue away from meta. So that’s not it. Naively so.

this is like saying that AMD making chips that intel/nvidia employees can buy and use to do their jobs is a bad strategy for AMD. lol. ok not every single strategic choice needs to both grow the top line and be anti-competitive. some can just grow the top line.
Post reply on HN