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

601–610 of 623 posts

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

#601

Post by meatmanek »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #426
microtonal wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if I cannot run open weight models on my own hardware, I can choose from a number of different inference providers and choose them based on pricing, reliability, speed, privacy policy, etc. There is a healthy competition. Also, not a single provider can pull the rug if I'd like to use a particular model.

Sure but that's true with the closed models as well. They run on different providers and you can choose the cloud provider you prefer.

...with prices and terms set by the model provider. AWS is not going to undercut Anthropic on Anthropic's models.

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

#602

Post by teaearlgraycold »

abustamam wrote: post #494
Alcor wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t ask engineers at big companies for release dates, they either don’t know or are not at liberty to say.

Don't even ask me at a small company for release dates

Just forget about the concept of a release date.

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

#603

Post by thayne »

xigoi wrote: post #522
thayne wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"open source" doesn't even make much sense for a model. But llama isn't even fully open weights due to the restrictions on its use.

Open source would mean publishing the training data and code.

Maybe. That is still pretty different from the source code for software though. Suppose OpenAI released all the training data, training methodology, and training source code, but didn't release the weights for a frontier model. Would that allow you to build the same model? Not unless you have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on it. And even then you won't get the exact same thing. That's not to say it isn't valuable. But I'm not sure "open source" is really the right term for that either.

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

#604

Post by bwhiting2356 »

CodingJeebus wrote: post #598
benrutter wrote: post #591

To give him credit, it's amazing that Mark Zuckerberg managed to take an easily defensible position like "we shouldn't allow AI to be owned by a couple of tech monopolies" and still manage to find so many individual points and arguments to be completely clueless on. My personal favourite: > Before the industrial revolution, 90% of people were farmers growing food to survive. Advances in technology steadily freed much…

It's particularly interesting because things got so bad during the Industrial Revolution that workers revolted against the capital class to demand things that modern workers take for granted today, like the 40-hour workweek[0], elimination of child labor, workplace safety law, mandatory education, etc. None of that was given away for free, people died fighting for those basic rights. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

before the industrial revolution, worker revolts were sometimes attempted but almost universally immediately squashed, as workers had even less power

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

#605

Post by wvbdmp »

overgard wrote: post #594
benrutter wrote: post #591

To give him credit, it's amazing that Mark Zuckerberg managed to take an easily defensible position like "we shouldn't allow AI to be owned by a couple of tech monopolies" and still manage to find so many individual points and arguments to be completely clueless on. My personal favourite: > Before the industrial revolution, 90% of people were farmers growing food to survive. Advances in technology steadily freed much…

Yeah, using the "industrial revolution" as a positive is a weird argument in general. Sure, the end result was, eventually, an improvement, but the process took decades and was horrible for most involved. If this "revolution" (I don't think it is) takes as long as the industrial revolution, I'll be like 70-80 before the supposed benefits accrue.

I mean it’s not a particularly techno-optimistic idea, it’s pretty common. Likewise, the French Revolution is widely celebrated inside and outside France, but at the time in the place it was bad bad.

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

#606

Post by stymaar »

wvbdmp wrote: post #605
overgard wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, using the "industrial revolution" as a positive is a weird argument in general. Sure, the end result was, eventually, an improvement, but the process took decades and was horrible for most involved. If this "revolution" (I don't think it is) takes as long as the industrial revolution, I'll be like 70-80 before the supposed benefits accrue.

I mean it’s not a particularly techno-optimistic idea, it’s pretty common. Likewise, the French Revolution is widely celebrated inside and outside France, but at the time in the place it was bad bad.

And it stayed bad for almost a century (it only started to normalized after the Communes were massacred, in 1871[1])

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaine_sanglante

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

#607

Post by herewulf »

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.

Alright, not Open Source but Free Slopware. This time the meaning of "free" is quite clear.

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

#608

Post by sicktriple »

thayne wrote: post #599
sicktriple wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I would. An extremely dangerous and important one to get right in fact. Let me first clarify what I am not saying. I am not saying that these institutions do not create evil, or commit evil acts and should not be resisted or destroyed. If we truly want these things to stop happening, material analysis is the only way to really address the root of the problem. We can easily see that fascism was a result of the tw…

These things are not mutually exclusive. You can say that Nazis were evil and also analyze the factors that led to them coming into power.

Sure, you can say whatever makes you feel better. You can say you're a pirate.

But writing off the mechanisms of large scale institutions as the result of moral actors is reductive and doesn't serve to address the systematic root cause of the issue, and ironically let's these people off the hook by narrowing the focus onto a group of particularly vile individuals. It's the "few bad apples" myth. I many ways, were all complicit. These are all human beings, after all. This is the true face of mankind.

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

#609

Post by Forgeties79 »

iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #479
Forgeties79 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you grab the most extreme examples you can argue anything. The general feeling was “exercise caution” and “we need to think about this.”

Oh stop, the current crop of kneecapping llms is already bad enough with how they cripple those. It would have been even worse if the 'we need to think about this' crowd kept the reins. At least now, we can have both: safe corporate crap and whatever you want llm.

>oh stop

No, you stop. You don’t know me we are not friends. Please do not talk to me like that.

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

#610

Post by alex1138 »

etempleton wrote: post #366
ViktorRay wrote: post #20

Comments here are surprising to me. I get folks don’t like Zuckerberg and his company and don’t trust his intentions… I don’t either. But this is an unquestionably good thing right?. The more open source software out there the better. And the more open weights or even over source AI stuff the better too right? More competition the better generally speaking I think. Unless I’m missing something and am getting this who…

This isn’t the first time Zuckerberg has espoused the benefit of openness and transparency and how that would create a better society. I get this is a bit different, but the language and sentiment are close enough. Facebook and Instagram are now so closed you cannot view a business page without an account. I think it sold fair to recognize open today does not mean open tomorrow. They want to acquire users and build a…

'Closed because scraping' is a big problem of hypocrisy

Let's say in a pretend world where Facebook gives a shit about anything (so, they combat marketplace scams, they don't randomly ban users, they faithfully show you posts from friends, they don't extort businesses) they want to protect privacy. So they close the site off, because scraping means there's no privacy. If I scrape your profile and export it to any number of sites, then it's not private. Ergo: closed. Sign up to view things, so we know who you are

But of course in the actual world that's not what they do. They purely want to do this to get more people to sign up so they 'have more users'. You can tell, because of who MZ is. You can tell because of how aggressive their own AI scrapers are on other sites. I've even heard they made a tool for Myspace that would enable you to transfer your contacts over to Facebook - but not the other way around

Post reply on HN