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

Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 168 posts

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#71

Post by TX81Z »

ramshanker wrote: post #67
foob wrote: post #47

From the recent story about the Sarah Silverman lawsuit: The complaint lays out in steps why the plaintiffs believe the datasets have illicit origins — in a Meta paper detailing LLaMA, the company points to sources for its training datasets, one of which is called ThePile, which was assembled by a company called EleutherAI. ThePile, the complaint points out, was described in an EleutherAI paper as being put together…

Sometimes, I wonder what if someone in XYZ country downloads whole of Z-Library/Libgen, all the books ever printed, and all the papers ever published, all the newspapers and so on. and releases the model open source. There are jurisdictions with Lax rules. And they will have much better knowledge, answers, etc than the western, Lawyer approved models. Sometimes knowledge needs to be set free I guess.

The production of knowledge needs to be funded as it isn’t “free”. Copyright and licensing is one model that has worked for a long time. It has flaws, but it has produced good things.

At this point with the quality of current web content and the collapse of journalism as an industry I think we can say online ads have utterly failed as a replacement income stream.

Unless you want all LLM to say “I’m sorry the data I was trained on ends in 2023” you still need a content funding model. Maybe not copyright, but sure as hell not ads either.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#73

Post by ssd532 »

zargon wrote: post #16

It's not open source, it's freeware or something like that. Weights aren't the source code of LLMs, they're the binaries.

I read it in all such discussions. What does it mean? I just have a very high level understanding of AI models. No idea how things work under the hood or what knobs can be tweaked.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#74

Post by TX81Z »

innagadadavida wrote: post #68
Ancalagon wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Move fast and break the law.

Copyright laws should be amended to allow this scenario. If I read a book and write about it in a blog, it is considered review. Why shouldn’t we allow companies to do the same to train their models? Overall it will benefit society more than it hurts some rich authors.

“Rich authors”.

Citation needed.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#75

Post by brucethemoose2 »

pmarreck wrote: post #66

I have a 128 core Threadripper, a 2080 Ti and a 3080 Ti. How can I play with open source LLM's locally?

Kobold.cpp is your best bet.

You can leverage those big CPUs while still loading both GPUs with a 65B model.

... If you are feeling extra nice, you should set that up as an AI horde worker whenever you run koboldcpp to play with models. It will run API requests for others in the background whenever its not crunching your own requests, in return allowing you priority access to models other hosts are running: https://aihorde.net/

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#76

Post by doctoboggan »

innagadadavida wrote: post #68
Ancalagon wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Move fast and break the law.

Copyright laws should be amended to allow this scenario. If I read a book and write about it in a blog, it is considered review. Why shouldn’t we allow companies to do the same to train their models? Overall it will benefit society more than it hurts some rich authors.

I think the difference is you presumably obtained that book legally before writing the review. In this case the book was pirated (the definitely illegal part), and then used for training (the possibly illegal part, but I suspect this would be deemed fair use).

IMO google and their massive google books DB would have a better leg to stand on here if they trained on that dataset as they owned physical copies of all the books.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#77

Post by haswell »

innagadadavida wrote: post #68
Ancalagon wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Move fast and break the law.

Copyright laws should be amended to allow this scenario. If I read a book and write about it in a blog, it is considered review. Why shouldn’t we allow companies to do the same to train their models? Overall it will benefit society more than it hurts some rich authors.

I think it’s a mistake/fallacy to equate the human acquisition of knowledge and resulting synthesis of value with that of large-scale computers ingesting the sum total of written human knowledge and the outcomes that enables.

They are not similar, and I suspect that if they were (i.e. humans could absorb that much information), the information landscape and the market models for exchanging value would look nothing like they do today, and AI wouldn’t be rocking the boat, it’d just be another adherent to the resulting laws.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#78

Post by twayt »

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #70
foob wrote: post #47

From the recent story about the Sarah Silverman lawsuit: The complaint lays out in steps why the plaintiffs believe the datasets have illicit origins — in a Meta paper detailing LLaMA, the company points to sources for its training datasets, one of which is called ThePile, which was assembled by a company called EleutherAI. ThePile, the complaint points out, was described in an EleutherAI paper as being put together…

> It's not like Meta can remove these books from the training set without retraining from scratch (or at least the last checkpoint before they were used). They probably can: https://github.com/zjunlp/EasyEdit > I wonder if this is going to cause issues down the road. There are some popular Stable Diffusion models, being run in small businesses, that I am certain have CSAM in them because they have a particular 4chan…

> They probably can:

No, actually they probably can’t. There is no verifiable way to remove the data from the model apart from completely removing all instances of information from the training data. The project you linked only describes a selective finetuning approach.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#79

Post by whimsicalism »

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #70
foob wrote: post #47

From the recent story about the Sarah Silverman lawsuit: The complaint lays out in steps why the plaintiffs believe the datasets have illicit origins — in a Meta paper detailing LLaMA, the company points to sources for its training datasets, one of which is called ThePile, which was assembled by a company called EleutherAI. ThePile, the complaint points out, was described in an EleutherAI paper as being put together…

> It's not like Meta can remove these books from the training set without retraining from scratch (or at least the last checkpoint before they were used). They probably can: https://github.com/zjunlp/EasyEdit > I wonder if this is going to cause issues down the road. There are some popular Stable Diffusion models, being run in small businesses, that I am certain have CSAM in them because they have a particular 4chan…

That is not at all the same thing as removing the books.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#80

Post by doctoboggan »

ssd532 wrote: post #73
zargon wrote: post #16

It's not open source, it's freeware or something like that. Weights aren't the source code of LLMs, they're the binaries.

I read it in all such discussions. What does it mean? I just have a very high level understanding of AI models. No idea how things work under the hood or what knobs can be tweaked.

The source code is all the supporting code needed to run inference on the weights. This is usually python and in the case of llama it's already open source. Usually the source code is referred to as the "model". You can kind of think of the weights as a settings file in a normal desktop application. The desktop app has its own source code and loads in the settings file at runtime. It can load different settings files for different behaviors.
Post reply on HN