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

541–550 of 592 posts

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

#541

Post by JoshTriplett »

maffulli wrote: post #497
JoshTriplett wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

If you read the license, you'd realize that Llama has restrictions incompatible with the definition of Open Source. https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-license-is-still-not...

I believe you have misread my comment somehow, because the fact that llama is not open source is exactly what I was calling attention to.

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

#543

Post by nradov »

dbspin wrote: post #500
nradov wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spear phishing isn't a real problem. Competent organizations have already implemented sufficient defenses and controls, regardless of whether the attacker is a human or LLM. Idiots will continue getting scammed but that's nothing new. I expect that many small businesses and local governments will be essentially forced to outsource their IT infrastructure to large vendors that can maintain hardened systems appropriate…

Not spear phishing in organisations... Spear phishing against individual people. Your grandmother, your aged uncle... Your comment on nuclear waste is so ill considered and poorly informed it's not worth responding to.

[dead]

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

#544

Post by nradov »

dbspin wrote: post #501
bigyabai wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the problems so vexatious (not to mention expensive) that little space is given to acknowledging them, let alone solving them. These problems will exist regardless of whether or not we get open model access. I'd personally rather that OpenAI and Anthropic aren't profiting off these scammers, creating a perverse incentive that open model providers don't have.

That's not the case at all. You can regulate and audit a small number of players. To a great extent at least. You cannot even theoretically regulate local models. Hell I've got a jailbroken Qwen 3.5 running on my mac studio that has no guardrails at all.

And that's fine because no guardrails are needed.

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

#545

Post by Nail2680 »

Topfi wrote: post #372
kamranjon wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly think of the T5 model family to sort of be the real beginning of this open model craze - I know BERT was already popular for classification etc, but T5 was the first sort of generally useful model, was exceptionally simple to fine-tune, and is still in use today (t5 base is still averaging over a million downloads a month on huggingface), has tons of variants and sort of kickstarted this whole community. U…

Couldn't agree more and can only recommend T5 as a base to anyone. It's amazing to get started, whether as a learning resource or for real (albeit very tailored) applications. Especially the BigScience fine tunes are such a great starting point and I, as a total layman, have learned a lot, especially concerning how a model can be optimised via all manner of methods since even mt0 is small enough to where one can do m…

There are some issue using T5 for regular people since the tokenizer has some issues. mT5 though, that one is pretty solid to start with.

Example: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/75851029/t5-fine-tuned-m...

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

#546

Post by drob518 »

sanderjd wrote: post #211
drob518 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a long term pattern. When you’re winning (Anthropic), you keep the tech closed and try to monetize it as much as possible. When you’re losing (Meta), you open it up or drag it into a standards committee to either devalue it or slow the leader down while you prepare a “standard” version of it. You also highlight how altruistic and morally good you are for having done so. There is nothing new under the sun. It’s a…

Yes, but it's good for everyone that the strategy of attempting to commoditize the cash cow of a competitor exists.

I made no value judgment about it. I merely note that it’s a game. Meta is not being altruistic or doing anything for the “good” of humanity or whatever. To be clear, I like competition with companies releasing open weight models.

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

#547

Post by drob518 »

overfeed wrote: post #153
drob518 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a long term pattern. When you’re winning (Anthropic), you keep the tech closed and try to monetize it as much as possible. When you’re losing (Meta), you open it up or drag it into a standards committee to either devalue it or slow the leader down while you prepare a “standard” version of it. You also highlight how altruistic and morally good you are for having done so. There is nothing new under the sun. It’s a…

> ...drag it into a standards committee to either devalue it or slow the leader down Anthropic et al recently proposed a supranational AI governing body designed to slow everyone down (euphemistically calling it "AI pacing"). Are the Pacer signatories losing?

In some aspect, yes, or they fear they will. For instance, Anthropic may fear that Chinese models will become “better” because they won’t put as many guardrails up, so they want everyone to agree to the guardrails such that if a model comes out showing better scores than Fable they can say “But it’s a dangerous model that doesn’t conform to our Pacing agreement.”

Or, they may be worried about government regulation that would really hurt their ability to move fast, so they want to get ahead of it with some “regulatory body” that they control. The motion picture, TV and gaming industries did this with self-imposed rating systems. The comic book folks did it with the “Comics Code Authority” back in 1954.

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

#548

Post by drob518 »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #424
skohan wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could be a move towards regulatory capture. Enact standards that they (and OpenAI) largely control, block access to Chinese models in the US, and effectively prevent challengers from catching up. At the same time they slow down the arms race, so they can back off on training Capex without losing their lead.

Literally nothing in their proposal is about blocking access to Chinese models, HN has devolved so much with these conspiratorial hot takes.

Of course. They’ll never put “stop the Chinese models” in the organization’s bylaws. But don’t be naive about why they are doing it.

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

#549

Post by drob518 »

germandiago wrote: post #404
drob518 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a long term pattern. When you’re winning (Anthropic), you keep the tech closed and try to monetize it as much as possible. When you’re losing (Meta), you open it up or drag it into a standards committee to either devalue it or slow the leader down while you prepare a “standard” version of it. You also highlight how altruistic and morally good you are for having done so. There is nothing new under the sun. It’s a…

Competition is good.

Of course it is. I never said differently.

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

#550

Post by sailingparrot »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #440
sailingparrot wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The crew are saying that the request came in on a frequency they weren't monitoring There is only one channel you are supposed to monitor, it’s 16. That’s also where the coast guards make all their announcement/requests for help and whatnot. The reason there is a single channel to monitor is precisely to avoid the situation of different vessels being on standby on different frequencies and thus being unable to hear…

It doesn't seem like it is confirmed it was on 16 [1]. The Coast Guard said the ship was not in immediate danger. Does that change your opinion? [1] https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/cruise-ship-helps-stranded-s...

No, all coast guards announcements are on 16 regardless of severity, because no one is monitoring other channels so any announcements on other channels would be like screaming in the void.

The initial call from help from the stranded boat was on 16 for sure, there is no other channel anyone would use for that.

The severity is instead communicated in the first part of the message with either « sécurité » for navigational hazards, « pan pan » for non life threatening events like this one, or « mayday » for life threatening events like man overboard, sinking etc.

The system is based on a single channel design specifically to avoid this situation. You only use other channels briefly, e.g. to talk to the dockmaster when coming into port, or to talk to another boat after having hailed it on 16. So it’s possible to miss a coast guard announcement, but they get repeated and in this case because they were the closest boat the coast guard must have tried to hail them multiple times.

My guess is that zuck yacht has a smaller boat attached to it, and they basically stayed on a different channel to communicate between the two for hours, never bothering to check 16. Which you aren’t supposed to do. Even then I would be surprised a $500M yacht can’t monitor two frequencies. I can on my little sailboat.

Post reply on HN