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

Meta Llama 3

llama.meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 965 posts

Re: Meta Llama 3

#631

Post by ks2048 »

hanspeter wrote: post #458
stareatgoats wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claude has the same restriction [0], the whole of Europe (except Albania) is excluded. Somehow I don't think it is a retaliation against Europe for fining Meta and Google. I could be wrong, but a business decision seems more likely, like keeping usage down to a manageable level in an initial phase. Still, curious to understand why, should anyone here know more. [0] https://www.anthropic.com/claude-ai-locations

It's because of regulations! The same reason that Threads was launched with a delay in EU. It simply takes a lot of work to comply with EU regulations, and by no surprise will we see these launches happen outside of EU first.

Same message in Guatemala. Not known for regulations.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#632

Post by chupchap »

selcuka wrote: post #594
nathanh4903 wrote: post #582

I tried generating a Chinese rap song, and it did generate a pretty good rap. However, upon completion, it deleted the response, and showed > I don’t understand Chinese yet, but I’m working on it. I will send you a message when we can talk in Chinese. I tried some other languages and the same. It will generate non-English language, but once its done, the response is deleted and replaced with the message

I'm seeing the same behaviour. It's as if they have a post-processor that evaluates the quality of the response after a certain number of tokens have been generated, and reverts the response if it's below a threshold.

It might be copyright related and not quality related. What if X% of it is a direct ripoff an existing song?

Re: Meta Llama 3

#633

Post by bevekspldnw »

observationist wrote: post #67

https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/LICENSE Llama is not open source. It's corporate freeware with some generous allowances. Open source licenses are a well defined thing. Meta marketing saying otherwise doesn't mean they get to usurp the meaning of a well understood and commonly used understanding of the term "open source." https://opensource.org/license Nothing about Meta's license is open source. It's a…

I don’t understand how the idea of open source become some sort of pseudo-legalistic purity test on everything.

Models aren’t code, some of the concepts of open source code don’t map 1:1 to freely available models.

In spirit I think this is “open source”, and I think that’s how the majority of people think.

Turning everything into some sort of theological debate takes away a lot of credit that Meta deserves. Google isn’t doing this. OpenAI sure as fuck isn’t.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#634

Post by hwbunny »

modeless wrote: post #237
bbig wrote: post #16

Zuck has an interview out for it as well, https://twitter.com/dwarkesh_sp/status/1780990840179187715

Seems like a year or two of MMA has done way more for his charisma than whatever media training he's done over the years. He's a lot more natural in interviews now.

Now he starts to look like a proper redneck with that necklace.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#635

Post by eldenring »

zmmmmm wrote: post #547
lordswork wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Still not open data though, is it? i.e., we don't have access to the same data they used to train, which is useful for both finetuning and studying the model.

To be fair, this is part of the reason it is so valuable. Meta has access to absolutely stupendous amounts of private training data. If you forced them to make the data available you would have to settle for a tiny training set by comparison. The value of this is exactly that you are getting access to the result of training on data that you couldn't otherwise access at all.

In the model card they say they dont train on any user generated data

Re: Meta Llama 3

#636

Post by hwbunny »

eigenvalue wrote: post #231

I just want to express how grateful I am that Zuck and Yann and the rest of the Meta team have adopted an open approach and are sharing the model weights, the tokenizer, information about the training data, etc. They, more than anyone else, are responsible for the explosion of open research and improvement that has happened with things like llama.cpp that now allow you to run quite decent models locally on consumer h…

It's like Elon saying: we have open sourced our patents, use them. Well, use the old patents and stay behind forever....

Re: Meta Llama 3

#637

Post by krisoft »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #626
krisoft wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> until your startup reaches 700M+ customers, when the free ride ends No it doesn’t. The licence terms talk about that those who on the release date of llama3 had 700M+ customers need an extra licence to use it. It doesn’t say that you loose access to it if in the future you gain that many users.

You don't lose access, but the free ride ends. It seems that new licence will include payment terms. Zuckerberg discusses this on the Dwarkesh interview.

What does the “free ride ends” mean? If you mean you can’t use the next model they might release after you have reached that many users, sure that might be true. It is not true that you have to pay for the already released llama 3.

I don’t care what Zuckerberg says. I care what the licence says. I recommend you to read it. It is shorter and more approachable than the usual rental agreement of a flat.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#638

Post by nmfisher »

eigenvalue wrote: post #231

I just want to express how grateful I am that Zuck and Yann and the rest of the Meta team have adopted an open approach and are sharing the model weights, the tokenizer, information about the training data, etc. They, more than anyone else, are responsible for the explosion of open research and improvement that has happened with things like llama.cpp that now allow you to run quite decent models locally on consumer h…

The quickest way to disabuse yourself of this notion is to login to Facebook. You’ll remember that Zuck makes money from the scummiest pool of trash and misinformation the world has ever seen. He’s basically the Web 2.0 tabloid newspaper king.

I don’t really care how much the AI team open sources, the world would be a better place if the entire company ceased to exist.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#639

Post by mindwok »

elzbardico wrote: post #585
aussieguy1234 wrote: post #554

"You’ll also soon be able to test multimodal Meta AI on our Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses." Now this is interesting. I've been thinking for some time now that traditional computer/smartphone interfaces are on the way out for all but a few niche applications. Instead, everyone will have their own AI assistant, which you'll interact with naturally the same way as you interact with other people. Need something visual? Just…

GUIs have an inherent advantage here: discoverability. If you think about it, conversational UIs, even turbo-charged by AI, are not that different from Command Line Interfaces. You need to have an idea that you want something. You lose the serendipity inherent to visual interfaces. We should never underestimate the power of the human visual cortex.

Interaction with an expert is extremely discoverable, and eliminates the need for many traditional interfaces anyway. Think about trying to book a holiday online and navigating all the interfaces for flights, accomodation, tours, etc. Versus going to see a travel agent, where you can loosely describe what you want and walk out with exactly what you need having interacted with zero graphical interfaces.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#640

Post by ronnier »

PeterStuer wrote: post #234

Open weight models do more for AI safety than any other measure by far, as the most serious threath is never going to be misuse, but abuse of unequal access.

What do you mean by AI safety?
Post reply on HN