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

561–570 of 936 posts

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#561

Post by frabcus »

proteal wrote: post #554
larodi wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, since when the deliverable being a jpeg/exe, which is similar to what the model file is, is considered the source? it is more like open result or freely available vm image, which works, but has its core FS scrambled or crypted. Zuck knows this very well and it does him no honour to speak like, and from his position this equals attempt ate trying to change the present semantics of open source. Of course, other…

Even if everything was released how you described, what good would that really do for an individual without access to heaps of compute? Functionally there seems to be no difference between open weights and open compute because nobody could train a facsimile model. Furthermore, all frontier models are inscrutable due to their construction. It’s wild to me seeing people complain semantics when meta dropped their model…

I'd find knowing what's in the training data hugely valuable - can analyse it to understand and predict capabilities.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#564

Post by stale2002 »

the8thbit wrote: post #144
stale2002 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok call it Open Weights then if the dictionary definitions matter so much to you. The actual point that matters is that these models are available for most people to use for a lot of stuff, and this is way way better than what competitors like OpenAI offer.

They don't "[allow] developers to modify its code however they want", which is a critical component of "open source", and one that Meta is clearly trying to leverage in branding around its products. I would like them to start calling these "public weight models", because what they're doing now is muddying the waters so much that "open source" now just means providing an enormous binary and an open source harness to r…

My central point is this:

"are available for most people to use for a lot of stuff, and this is way way better than what competitors like OpenAI offer."

I presume you agree with it.

> rather than serving access

Its not the same access though.

I am sure that you are creative enough to think of many questions that you could ask llama3, that would instead get you kicked off of OpenAI.

> They don't "[allow] developers to modify its code however they want"

Actually, the fact that the model weights are available means that you can even ignore any limitations that you think are on it, and you'll probably just get away with it. You are also ignoring the fact that the limitations are minimal to most people.

Thats a huge deal!

And it is dishonest to compare a situation where limitations are both minimal and almost unenforceable (Except against maybe Google) to a situation where its physically not possible to get access to the model weights to do what you want with them.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#565

Post by twelve40 »

It'll be interesting to come back here in a couple of years and see what's left. What do they even do anymore? They have Facebook, which hasn't visibly changed in a decade. They have Instagram, which feels a bit sleeker but also remained more or less the same. and Whatsapp. Ad network that runs on top of those services and floods them with trash. Bunch of stuff that doesn't seem to exist anymore - Libra, the grandiose multibillion dollar Legless VR, etc.

But they still have 70 thousand people (a small country) doing _something_. What are they doing? Updating Facebook UI? Not really, the UI hasn't been updated, and you don't need 70 thousand people to do that. Stuff like React and Llama? Good, I guess, we'll see how they make use of Llama in a couple of years. Spellcheck for posts maybe?

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#566

Post by seoulmetro »

the8thbit wrote: post #12

"Eventually though, open source Linux gained popularity – initially because it allowed developers to modify its code however they wanted ..." I find the language around "open source AI" to be confusing. With "open source" there's usually "source" to open, right? As in, there is human legible code that can be read and modified by the user? If so, then how can current ML models be open source? They're very large matric…

Unfortunately open source really just means an open API these days. The API is heavily intertwined with closed source.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#567

Post by seoulmetro »

alfalfasprout wrote: post #558
meowtimemania wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would openai/anthropic's approach be more safe? Are people able to remove all the guard rails on the llama models?

They're not safer. The claim is that OpenAI will enforce guard rails and take steps to ensure model outputs and prompts are responsible... but only a fool would take them at their word.

Yeah.. and Facebook said they would enforce censorship on their platforms to ensure content safety.. that didn't turn out so well. Now it just censors anything remotely controversial, such as World War 2 historical facts or even just slightly offensive wording.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#568

Post by CamperBob2 »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #424
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?

This isn't helpful. The community defers to the OSI's definition because it captures what they care about. We've seen people try to deceptively describe non-OSS projects as open source, and no doubt we will continue to see it. Thankfully the community (including Hacker News) is quick to call it out, and to insist on not cheapening the term. This is one the topics that just keeps turning up: * https://news.ycombinator…

This isn't helpful. The community...

Speak for yourself, please. The term is much older than 1998, with one easily-Googled example being https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000639879.pdf , and an explicit case of IT-related usage being https://i.imgur.com/Nw4is6s.png from https://www.google.com/books/edition/InfoWarCon/09X3Ove9uKgC... .

Unless a registered trademark is involved (spoiler: it's not) no one, whether part of a so-called "community" or not, has any authority to gatekeep or dictate the terms under which a generic phrase like "open source" can be used.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#569

Post by ab5tract »

cheema33 wrote: post #502
ab5tract wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really pretending that OSI and the open source label itself wasn’t a reactionary movement that vilified free software principles in hopes of gaining corporate traction? Most of us who were there remember it differently. True open source advocates will find little to refute in what I’ve said.

> True open source advocates will find little to refute in what I’ve said. No true Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman OSI helped popularize the open source movement. They not only make it palatable to businesses, but got them excited about it. I think that FSF/Stallman alone would not have been very successful on this front with GPL/AGPL.

Like I said, honest open source advocates won’t take issue to how I framed their position.

Here’s a more important point: how far would the open source people have gotten without GCC and glibc?

Much less far than they will ever admit, in my experience.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#570

Post by sebastiennight »

meroes wrote: post #517
warkdarrior wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds fantastic. If they make the Meta headset easy to wear and somewhat fashionable (closer to eyeglass than to a motorcycle helmet), I'd take it everywhere and record everything. Give me a retrospective search and conferences/meetings will be so much easier (I am terrible with names).

I wouldn’t even say hi alone my name to someone wearing a Meta headset out in public. And if facial recognition becomes that common for wearers, most of the population is going to adorn something to prevent that. And if it’s at work, I’m not working there and I have to think many would agree. Coworkers don’t and wouldn’t tolerate coworkers taking videos or pictures of them.

This is not how the overwhelming majority of the world works though.

> if facial recognition becomes that common for wearers, most of the population is going to adorn something to prevent that

"Most of the population" is going to be "the wearers".

> Coworkers don’t and wouldn’t tolerate coworkers taking videos or pictures of them.

Here is a fun experience you can try: just hit "record" on every single Teams or Meet meeting you're ever on (or just set recording as the default setting in the app).

See how many coworkers comment on it, let alone protest.

I can tell you from experience (of having been in thousands of hours of recorded meetings in the last 3 years) that the answer is zero.

Post reply on HN