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

Open source AI is the path forward

about.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 936 posts

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#81

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

mkolodny wrote: post #73
the8thbit wrote: post #12

"Eventually though, open source Linux gained popularity – initially because it allowed developers to modify its code however they wanted ..." I find the language around "open source AI" to be confusing. With "open source" there's usually "source" to open, right? As in, there is human legible code that can be read and modified by the user? If so, then how can current ML models be open source? They're very large matric…

Llama’s code is open source: https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/llama/model.p...

That is just the inference code. Not training code or evaluation code or whatever pre/post processing they do.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#82

Post by stale2002 »

the8thbit wrote: post #12

"Eventually though, open source Linux gained popularity – initially because it allowed developers to modify its code however they wanted ..." I find the language around "open source AI" to be confusing. With "open source" there's usually "source" to open, right? As in, there is human legible code that can be read and modified by the user? If so, then how can current ML models be open source? They're very large matric…

Ok call it Open Weights then if the dictionary definitions matter so much to you.

The actual point that matters is that these models are available for most people to use for a lot of stuff, and this is way way better than what competitors like OpenAI offer.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#83

Post by mesebrec »

sidcool wrote: post #69
mvkel wrote: post #46

It's a real shame that we're still calling Llama "open source" when at best it's "open weights." Not that anyone would go buy 100,000 H100s to train their own Llama, but words matter. Definitions matter.

Honest question. As far as LLMs are concerned, isn't open weights same as open source?

Open source requires, at the very least, that you can use it for any purpose. This is not the case with Llama.

The Llama license has a lot of restrictions, based on user base size, type of use, etc.

For example you're not allowed to use Llama to train or improve other models.

But it goes much further than that. The government of India can't use Llama because they're too large. Sex workers are not allowed to use Llama due to the acceptable use policy of the license. Then there is also the vague language probibiting discrimination, racism etc.. good luck getting something like that approved by your legal team.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#84

Post by JumpCrisscross »

exe34 wrote: post #71
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one has bothered to release their training data If the FOSS community sets this as the benchmark for open source in respect of AI, they're going to lose control of the term. In most jurisdictions it would be illegal for the likes of Meta to release training data.

the training data is the source.

> the training data is the source

Sure. But that's not going to be released. The term open source AI cannot be expected to cover it because it's not practical.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#85

Post by FinchNova12 »

> Our adversaries are great at espionage, stealing models that fit on a thumb drive is relatively easy, and most tech companies are far from operating in a way that would make this more difficult.

Mostly unrelated to the correctness of the article, but this feels like a bad argument. AFAIK, Anthropic/OpenAI/Google are not having issues with their weights being leaked (are they?). Why is it that Meta's model weights are?

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#86

Post by JumpCrisscross »

gpm wrote: post #79
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> better that the government removes IP on such technology for public use, like drugs got generics You want to punish NVIDIA for calling its shots correctly? You don't see the many ways that backfires?

No. But I do want to limit the amount we reward NVIDIA for calling the shots correctly to maximize the benefit to society. For instance by reducing the duration of the government granted monopolies on chip technology that is obsolete well before the default duration of 20 years is over. That said, it strikes me that the actual limiting factor is fab capacity not nvidia's designs and we probably need to lift the monop…

> reducing the duration of the government granted monopolies on chip technology that is obsolete well before the default duration of 20 years is over

Why do you think these private entities are willing to invest the massive capital it takes to keep the frontier advancing at that rate?

> I do want to limit the amount we reward NVIDIA for calling the shots correctly to maximize the benefit to society

Why wouldn't NVIDIA be a solid steward of that capital given their track record?

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#88

Post by Teever »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #45
rvnx wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be better that the government removes IP on such technology for public use, like drugs got generics. This way the government pays 2'500 USD per card, not 40'000 USD or whatever absurd.

> better that the government removes IP on such technology for public use, like drugs got generics You want to punish NVIDIA for calling its shots correctly? You don't see the many ways that backfires?

There was a post[0] on here recently about how the US went from producing woefully insufficient numbers of aircraft to producing 300k by the end of world war 2.

One of the things that the post mentioned was the meager profit margin that the companies made during this time.

But the thing is that this set the America auto and aviation industry up to rule the world for decades.

A government going to a company and saying 'we need you to produce this product for us at a lower margin thab you'd like to' isn't the end of the world.

I don't know if this is one of those scenarios but they exist.

[0] https://www.construction-physics.com/p/how-to-build-300000-a...

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#90

Post by mesebrec »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #38
candiddevmike wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of Meta's models are "open source" in the FOSS sense, even the latest Llama 3.1. The license is restrictive. And no one has bothered to release their training data either. This post is an ad and trying to paint these things as something they aren't.

> no one has bothered to release their training data If the FOSS community sets this as the benchmark for open source in respect of AI, they're going to lose control of the term. In most jurisdictions it would be illegal for the likes of Meta to release training data.

Regardless of the training data, the license even heavily restricts how you can use the model.

Please read through their "acceptable use" policy before you decide whether this is really in line with open source.

Post reply on HN