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

691–700 of 965 posts

Re: Meta Llama 3

#691

Post by abkolan »

m12k wrote: post #504
paxys wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can see from Zuck's interviews that he is still an engineer at heart. Every other big tech company has lost that kind of leadership.

But also: Facebook/Meta got burned when they missed the train on owning a mobile platform, instead having to live in their competitors' houses and being vulnerable to de-platforming on mobile. So they've invested massively in trying to make VR the next big thing to get out from that precarious position, or maybe even to get to own the next big platform after mobile (so far with little to actually show for it at a str…

> now it's in Zuck's interest to get his competitor's moat bridged as fast as possible.

It's this, and by making it open and available on every cloud out there would make this accessible to other start ups who might play in Meta's competitor's spaces.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#692

Post by whereistimbo »

How do they plan to make money with this? They can even make money with their 24K GPU cluster as IaaS if they want to. Even Google is gatekeeping its best Gemini model behind.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240000000000*/https://filebin.... https://web.archive.org/web/20240419035112/https://s3.filebi...

Re: Meta Llama 3

#693

Post by Solvency »

paxys wrote: post #229
bbig wrote: post #16

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

Very interesting part around 5 mins in where Zuck says that they bought a shit ton of H100 GPUs a few years ago to build the recommendation engine for Reels to compete with TikTok (2x what they needed at the time, just to be safe), and now they are accidentally one of the very few companies out there with enough GPU capacity to train LLMs at this scale.

[flagged]

Re: Meta Llama 3

#694

Post by Salgat »

kkielhofner wrote: post #688
Salgat wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also keep in mind that it's still a proprietary model. Meta gets all the benefits of open source contributions and testing while retaining exclusive business use.

Very wrong. Llama is usable by any company under 700M MAU.

Do you have a source? Here's the license when you request access from Meta for Llama, unless there's something I'm missing?

https://ai.meta.com/blog/large-language-model-llama-meta-ai/

EDIT: Looks like they did open up commercial use with version 2 with the explicit restriction to prevent any major competitor to Meta from using Llama, and that any improvements related to Llama can only apply to Llama. So an attempt to expand the scope of usage and adoption of their proprietary model without their main competitors being able to use it, which still fits my original point.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#695

Post by hackerlight »

nh23423fefe wrote: post #519
emrah wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be honest that he's probably not doing it due to goodness of his heart. He's most likely trying to commoditize the models so he can sell their complement. It's a strategy Joel Spolsky had talked about in the past (for those of you who remember who that is). I'm not sure what the complement of AI models is that Meta can sell exactly, so maybe it's not a good strategy but I'm certain it's a strategy of some sort

You lead with a command to be honest and then immediately speculate on private unknowable motivations and then attribute, without evidence, his decision to a strategy you can't describe. What is this? Someone said something nice, and you need to "restore balance"

They said something naive, not just "nice". It's good to correct the naivete.

For example, as we speak, Zuck is lobbying congress to ban Tiktok. Putting aside whether you think it should be banned, this is clearly a cynical strategy with pure self interest in mind. He's trying to monopolize.

Whatever Zuck's strategy with open source is, it's just a strategy. Much like AMD is pursuing that strategy. They're corporations and they don't care about you or me.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#696

Post by simonw »

RexM wrote: post #659
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Addi…

It seems pretty clear cut that it’s monthly active users when Llama 3 is released. > If, on the Meta Llama 3 version release date, the monthly active users … is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month … If that’s not true then the free license applies to you.

What happens if your startup is in negotiations to be acquired by a company that had more than 700m users before that date?

Re: Meta Llama 3

#697

Post by eru »

tinybear1 wrote: post #530
eru wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Via Microsoft Copilot (and perhaps Bing?) you can get access to GPT-4 for free.

* With targeted advertising

Eh, no worse than any other free (and many paid!) products on the web.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#698

Post by pama »

simonw wrote: post #204
jph00 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " Nothing about Meta's license is open source. It's a carefully constructed legal agreement intended to prevent any meaningful encroachment by anyone, ever, into any potential Meta profit, and to disavow liability to prevent reputational harm in the case of someone using their freeware for something embarrassing. " You seem to be making claims that have little connection to the actual license. The license states yo…

Those additional restrictions mean it's not an open source license by the OSI definition, which matters if you care about words sometimes having unambiguous meanings. I call models like this "openly licensed" but not "open source licensed".

Isn’t a simple interpretation of this type of license that some people get the open source license and others get the commercial license? Almost like a switch statement for licenses. If you belong in the category that gets the commercial one, you cannot call it open source for sure, but if you belong to the other category then it seems like an open source license to me. There is no guarantee about future licenses, and some (reasonable) restrictions but all open source licenses have some terms attached.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#699

Post by aqfamnzc »

eigenvalue wrote: post #438
a_wild_dandan wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, being open source adds phenomenal value for Meta: 1. It attracts the world's best academic talent, who deeply want their work shared. AI experts can join any company, so ones which commit to open AI have a huge advantage. 2. Having armies of SWEs contributing millions of free labor hours to test/fix/improve/expand your stuff is incredible. 3. The industry standardizes around their tech, driving down costs and d…

Yes, I completely agree with every point you made. It’s going to be so satisfying when all the AI safety people realize that their attempts to cram this protectionist/alarmist control down our throats are all for nothing, because there is an even stronger model that is totally open weights, and you can never put the genie back in the bottle!

Hopefully they aren't able to cram it down our legislators' throats... Seems that's what really matters

Re: Meta Llama 3

#700

Post by bevekspldnw »

skybrian wrote: post #644
bevekspldnw wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bec…

But it’s also a bit absurd in a sense - let’s say you have all of Meta’s code and training data. Ok, now what? Even if you also had a couple spare data centers, unlimited money, and an army of engineers, you can’t even find enough NVIDIA cards to do the training run. This isn’t some homebrew shit, it’s millions upon millions of dollars of computational power devoted to building this thing.

I think at a fundamental level people have to start thinking a little differently about what this is, what open really means, and the like.

Post reply on HN