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

801–810 of 965 posts

Re: Meta Llama 3

#801

Post by ben_w »

zzzzzzzzzz10 wrote: post #798
ben_w wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can never put the genie back in the bottle That's specifically why OpenAI don't release weights, and why everyone who cares about safety talks about laws, and why Yud says the laws only matter if you're willing to enforce them internationally via air strikes. > It’s going to be so satisfying I won't be feeling Schadenfreude if a low budget group or individual takes an open weights model, does a white-box analys…

If some unhinged psycho want to build nerve agents and bombs I think it's laughable to believe an LLM will be the tool that makes a difference in enabling them to do so. As you said the information is already out there - getting info on how to do this stuff is not the barrier you think it is.

> I think it's laughable to believe an LLM will be the tool that makes a difference

If you think it's "laughable", what do you think tools are for? Every tool makes some difference, that's why they get used.

The better models are already at the level of a (free) everything-intern, and it's very easy to use them for high-level control of robotics.

> getting info on how to do this stuff is not the barrier you think it is.

Knowing what question you need to ask in order to not kill oneself in the process, however, is.

Secondary school chemistry lessons taught me two distinct ways to make chlorine using only things found in a normal kitchen; but the were taught in the context "don't do X or Y, that makes chlorine", not "here's some PPE, let's get to work".

Re: Meta Llama 3

#802

Post by ktzar »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #136
CuriouslyC wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't compare against the best models because they were trying to do "in class" comparisons, and the 70B model is in the same class as Sonnet (which they do compare against) and GPT3.5 (which is much worse than sonnet). If they're beating sonnet that means they're going to be within stabbing distance of opus and gpt4 for most tasks, with the only major difference probably arising in extremely difficult reasonin…

Llama is open weight, not open source. They don’t release all the things you need to reproduce their weights.

even if they released them, wouldn't it be prohibitively expensive to reproduce the weights?

Re: Meta Llama 3

#804

Post by whywhywhywhy »

LrnByTeach wrote: post #610
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.

Losers & Winners from Llama-3-400B Matching 'Claude 3 Opus' etc.. Losers: - Nvidia Stock : lid on GPU growth in the coming year or two as "Nation states" use Llama-3/Llama-4 instead spending $$$ on GPU for own models, same goes with big corporations. - OpenAI & Sam: hard to raise speculated $100 Billion, Given GPT-4/GPT-5 advances are visible now. - Google : diminished AI superiority posture Winners: - AMD, intel: th…

>AMD, intel: these companies can focus on Chips for AI Inference

No real evidence either can pull that off in any meaningful timeline, look how badly they neglected this type of computing the past 15 years.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#805

Post by ZiiS »

llm_trw wrote: post #714
glenstein wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right because the very little I've heard out of Sam Altman this year hinting at future updates suggests that there's something coming before we turn our calendars to 2025. So equaling or mildly exceeding GPT-4 will certainly be welcome, but could amount to a temporary stint as king of the mountain.

This is always the case. But the fact that open models are beating state of the art from 6 months ago is really telling just how little moat there is around AI.

FB are over $10B into AI. The English Channel was a wide moat just not uncrossable.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#806

Post by krisoft »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #649
krisoft wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Addi…

> Here is the relevant Llama 3 license section, below, in it's entirety.

I agree too that this is the relevant section.

> It says that if you have 700M+ users then you'll need a new license

It does not say that. It says that if you or your affiliate had 700M+ users on the day of llama3's release date then you need an other licence.

This does not trigger if you just gain 700M+ users. Simply it does not. It does trigger if you become affiliated by someone who in that past date already had 700M+ (for example if google buys you up, or if you become a strategic partner of google).

The key here is "on the Meta Llama 3 version release date" which sets the exact date for when the monthly active users of the products or services should be counted.

> It does not say what the terms of that new license will be

Correct. And I assume the terms would be highly onerous. That I do not dispute.

> or just believe me when I tell you that Zuck said it'll be a commercial license

I believe you on that. That is not what we disagree on. The bit we seem to disagree on is when exactly do you need this extra licence. You state that you need it if your company gains in a future date 700M+ users. That is simply not supported by the very section you quoted above.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#807

Post by eru »

latexr wrote: post #776
eru wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's fun to be able to retire early or whatever, but driving software engineer salaries out of reach of otherwise profitable, sustainable businesses is not a good thing. That argument could apply to anyone who pays anyone well. Driving up market pay for workers via competition for their labour is exactly how we get progress for workers. (And by 'treat well', I mean the whole package. Fortunately, or unfortunately,…

> Fortunately, or unfortunately, that has the side effect of eg paying veterinary nurses peanuts, because there's always people willing to do those kinds of 'cute' jobs. Veterinaries (including technicians) have an absurdly high rate of suicide. They have a stressful job, constantly around death and mistreatment situations, and don’t get the respect (despite often knowing more than human doctors) or the salaries to m…

Yet, people still line up to become veterinaries (and technicians). Which proves my point.

> Calling these jobs “cute” or saying the veterinary situation is “fortunate” borders on cruel, [...]

Perhaps not the best choice of words, I admit.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#808

Post by oelang »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #804
LrnByTeach wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Losers & Winners from Llama-3-400B Matching 'Claude 3 Opus' etc.. Losers: - Nvidia Stock : lid on GPU growth in the coming year or two as "Nation states" use Llama-3/Llama-4 instead spending $$$ on GPU for own models, same goes with big corporations. - OpenAI & Sam: hard to raise speculated $100 Billion, Given GPT-4/GPT-5 advances are visible now. - Google : diminished AI superiority posture Winners: - AMD, intel: th…

>AMD, intel: these companies can focus on Chips for AI Inference No real evidence either can pull that off in any meaningful timeline, look how badly they neglected this type of computing the past 15 years.

AMD is already competitive on inference

Re: Meta Llama 3

#809

Post by weebull »

int_19h wrote: post #593
freedomben wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't tried Llama 3 yet, but Llama 2 is indeed extremely "safe." (I'm old enough to remember when AI safety was about not having AI take over the world and kill all humans, not when it might offend a Puritan's sexual sensibilities or hurt somebody's feelings, so I hate using the word "safe" for it, but I can't think of a better word that others would understand). It's not quite as bad as Gemini, but in the same c…

"Censored" is the word that you're looking for, and is generally what you see when these models are discussed on Reddit etc. Not to worry - uncensored finetunes will be coming shortly.

You can't really take out the censorship. You can strengthen pathways which work around the damage, but the damage is still there.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#810

Post by eru »

alexey-salmin wrote: post #758
eru wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the same as "lowering prices to the benefit of consumer" vs "price dumping to become a monopoly". Where has that ever worked? Predatory pricing is highly unlikely. See eg https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2017/Hendersonpreda... and https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/03/public_schoolin.htm... > Facebook never did it at scale though. Google did. Please provide some examples. > There's a difference betw…

> Where has that ever worked? Predatory pricing is highly unlikely. > See eg Neither of the articles understand how predatory pricing works, assuming it's a single-market process. In the most usual case you fuel price dumping in one market by profits from the other. This way you can run it potentially indefinitely and you're doing it not in a hope of making profits on this market some day but to make sure no one else…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing says

> For a period of time, the prices are set unrealistically low to ensure competitors are unable to effectively compete with the dominant firm without making substantial loss. The aim is to force existing or potential competitors within the industry to abandon the market so that the dominant firm may establish a stronger market position and create further barriers to entry.[2] Once competition has been driven from the market, consumers are forced into a monopolistic market where the dominant firm can safely increase prices to recoup its losses.[3]

What you are describing is not predatory pricing, that's a big part of why I was confused.

> Funnily enough the second author got a good example but still failed to see it under his nose: public schools do have 90% of the market, and in many countries almost 100%. Obviously it works.

Please consider reading the article more carefully. Your interpretation requires the author to be an idiot.

---

What you are describing about browsers is interesting. But it's more like bundling and cross subsidies. Neither Microsoft nor Google were ever considering making money from raising the price of their browser after competition had been driven out. That's required for predatory pricing.

Post reply on HN