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

641–650 of 965 posts

Re: Meta Llama 3

#641

Post by phillipcarter »

A little late to the comment party, but the chat playground worked on first try with something I'm working on: https://twitter.com/_cartermp/status/1781060417403686918

Unfortunately, for some reason the API itself goes off the rails when I pass the same exact prompt as I do in the chat playground. Doesn't matter what parameters I configure.

Probably an issue on my end, but still, I yearn for the day where I can reliable prototype in a chatbot and then have the API respond similarly.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#642

Post by Aaron2222 »

davidmurdoch wrote: post #604
dazuaz wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm based on LLaMA 2, which is a type of transformer language model developed by Meta AI. LLaMA 2 is a more advanced version of the original LLaMA model, with improved performance and capabilities. I'm a specific instance of LLaMA 2, trained on a massive dataset of text from the internet, books, and other sources, and fine-tuned for conversational AI applications. My knowledge cutoff is December 2022, and I'm constan…

Are you trying to say you are a bot?

That's the response they got when asking the https://www.meta.ai/ web console what version of LLaMA it is.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#643

Post by nomel »

bevekspldnw wrote: post #633
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 i…

> Turning everything into some sort of theological debate takes away a lot of credit that Meta deserves.

It's not theological, it's the misuse of a specific legal definition that we all have interest in maintaining. "Freely available models" or "open license" are accurate.

Other companies keeping things for themselves doesn't warp reality, or the existing definitions we use to describe it. Giving them the credit they deserve, especially in comparison to the others, should be enough.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#644

Post by skybrian »

bevekspldnw wrote: post #633
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 i…

It doesn’t mean it’s a bad license, just that it doesn’t meet the definition. There are legitimate reasons for companies to use source-available licenses. You still get to see the source code and do some useful things with it, but read the terms to see what you can do.

Meanwhile, there are also good reasons not to water down a well-defined term so it becomes meaningless like “agile” or “open.”

This gets confusing because people want to use “open source” as a sort of marketing term that just means it’s good, so if you say it’s not open source that’s taken to imply it’s bad.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#645

Post by jondwillis »

phillipcarter wrote: post #641

A little late to the comment party, but the chat playground worked on first try with something I'm working on: https://twitter.com/_cartermp/status/1781060417403686918 Unfortunately, for some reason the API itself goes off the rails when I pass the same exact prompt as I do in the chat playground. Doesn't matter what parameters I configure. Probably an issue on my end, but still, I yearn for the day where I can relia…

Use an open source playground that uses the API.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#646

Post by segmondy »

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

so run it locally, local version is not guarded

Re: Meta Llama 3

#647

Post by janalsncm »

vjeux wrote: post #330
janalsncm wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is. But I noticed something weird. If your prompt is “A cartoon of XYZ” and press enter the preview will be a cartoon but the other images will be weird realistic ones.

The preview is using a different faster model so you're not going to get the exact same styles of responses from the larger slower one. If you have ideas on how to make the user experience better based on those constraints please let us know!

Well my feedback would be that your larger slower model doesn’t seem to be capable of generating cartoon style images while the preview model does seem to be able to.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#648

Post by MichaelCharles »

nickthegreek wrote: post #17
bbig wrote: post #4

They've got a console for it as well, https://www.meta.ai/ And announcing a lot of integration across the Meta product suite, https://about.fb.com/news/2024/04/meta-ai-assistant-built-wi... Neglected to include comparisons against GPT-4-Turbo or Claude Opus, so I guess it's far from being a frontier model. We'll see how it fares in the LLM Arena.

And they even allow you to use it without logging in. Didnt expect that from Meta.

But not from Japan, and I assume most other non-English speaking countries.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#649

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

krisoft wrote: post #637
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #626

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here is the relevant Llama 3 license section, below, in it's entirety. It says that if you have 700M+ users then you'll need a new license, which Meta may or may not choose to grant to you. It does not say what the terms of that new license will be, but if you are interested you can watch the Dwarkesh interview, or just believe me when I tell you that Zuck said it'll be a commercial license - you will pay.

**

2. Additional Commercial Terms. If, on the Meta Llama 3 version release date, the monthly active users of the products or services made available by or for Licensee, or Licensee’s affiliates, is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month, you must request a license from Meta, which Meta may grant to you in its sole discretion, and you are not authorized to exercise any of the rights under this Agreement unless or until Meta otherwise expressly grants you such rights.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#650

Post by salesynerd »

dazuaz wrote: post #590
bbig wrote: post #4

They've got a console for it as well, https://www.meta.ai/ And announcing a lot of integration across the Meta product suite, https://about.fb.com/news/2024/04/meta-ai-assistant-built-wi... Neglected to include comparisons against GPT-4-Turbo or Claude Opus, so I guess it's far from being a frontier model. We'll see how it fares in the LLM Arena.

I'm based on LLaMA 2, which is a type of transformer language model developed by Meta AI. LLaMA 2 is a more advanced version of the original LLaMA model, with improved performance and capabilities. I'm a specific instance of LLaMA 2, trained on a massive dataset of text from the internet, books, and other sources, and fine-tuned for conversational AI applications. My knowledge cutoff is December 2022, and I'm constan…

Strange. The Llama 3 model card mentions that the knowledge cutoff dates are March 2023 for the 8B version and December 2023 for the 70B version (https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/MODEL_CARD.md)
Post reply on HN