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

821–830 of 965 posts

Re: Meta Llama 3

#821

Post by skissane »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #762
viraptor wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's trivial to comply with EU privacy regulation if you're not depending on selling customer data. But if you say "It's because of regulations!" I hope you have a source to back that up.

It is because of regulations. Nothing is trivial and anything has a cost. Not only it impacts existing businesses, it also make it harder for a struggling new business to compete with the current leaders. Regulations in the name of the users are actually just made to solidify the top lobbyists in their positions. The reasons I hate regulations is not because billionaires have to spend an extra week on some employee's…

> It is because of regulations. Nothing is trivial and anything has a cost. Not only it impacts existing businesses, it also make it harder for a struggling new business to compete with the current leaders.

But, in my experience, it is also true that "regulations" is sometimes a convenient excuse for a vendor to not do something, whether or not the regulations actually say that.

Years ago, I worked for a university. We were talking to $MAJOR_VENDOR sales about buying a hosted student email solution from them. This was mid-2000s, so that kind of thing was a lot less mainstream then compared to now. Anyway, suddenly the $MAJOR_VENDOR rep turned around and started claiming they couldn't sell the product to us because "selling it to a .edu.au domain violates the Australian Telecommunications Act". Never been a lawyer, but that legal explanation sounded very nonsensical to me. We ended up talking to Google instead, who were happy to offer us Google Apps for Education, and didn't believe there were any legal obstacles to their doing so.

I was left with the strong suspicion that $MAJOR_VENDOR didn't want to do it for their own internal reasons (product wasn't ready, we weren't a sufficiently valuable customer, whatever) and someone just made up the legal justification because it sounded better than whatever the real reason was

Re: Meta Llama 3

#822

Post by foota »

fragmede wrote: post #709
bevekspldnw wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 le…

People are thinking what open really means, and they're telling you this isn't open. it definitely isn't Open Source, as defined by the OSI. Open Source has a specific meaning and this doesn't meet it. It's generous of Meta to give us these models and grant us access to them, and let us modify them, fine tune them, and further redistribute them. It's really great! But we're still in the dark as to how they came about…

This is like saying an image is or isn't open source. The model itself isn't a program, so asking whether it's open source or not is a bit of a category error.

So it's a bit silly for anyone to claim a model is open source, but it's not silly to say a model is open. What open means isn't well defined when it comes to a model in the same way that source code is.

Imo if someone reveals the model's architecture and makes the weights available with minimal limitations, it's probably reasonable to call it open. I don't know that that would apply to llama though since I believe there are limitations on how you can use the model.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#823

Post by nightski »

eggdaft wrote: post #741
gliched_robot wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree on Nvidia, most folks fine-tune model. Proof: there are about 20k models in huggingface derived from llama 2, all of them trained on Nvidia GPUs.

Fine tuning can take a fraction of the resources required for training, so I think the original point stands.

Maybe in isolation when only considering a single fine tune. But if you look at it in aggregate I am not so sure.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#824

Post by llm_trw »

ZiiS wrote: post #805
llm_trw wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but the amount they have invested into training llama3 even if you include all the hardware is in the low tens of millions. There are a _lot_ of companies who can afford that.

Hell there are not for profits that can afford that.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#825

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

simonw wrote: post #696
RexM wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Presumably megacorp's laywers are engaged with you doing due diligence before the acquisition, will be looking into this, and evaluating the license. Maybe they have prior licensing agreements with Meta, or plan to replace your use of Llama with something different, who knows.

OTOH if you are being acquired by Elon Musk, then there may be no due diligence, he will tear up any existing license agreements, spend the next year bickering with Meta on Twitter, then be sued to comply.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#826

Post by extraduder_ire »

mrtranscendence wrote: post #194
sa-code wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU actually has the opposite of draconian privacy laws. It's more that meta doesn't have a business model if they don't intrude on your privacy

Well, exactly, and that's why IMO they'll end up pulling out the EU. There's barely any money in non-targeted ads.

If it's more money than it costs to operate, I doubt it. There's plenty of businesses in the EU buying ads and page promotion still.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#827

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

krisoft wrote: post #806
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…

> 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 trigge…

In practice this isn't a matter of how you or I interpret this license - it's a matter of how watertight it is legally.

There's no reason to suppose that terms of any commercial licensing agreement would be onerous. At this stage at least these models are all pretty fungible and could be swapped out without much effort, so Meta would be competing with other companies for your business, if they want it. If they don't want your business (e.g. maybe you're a FaceBook competitor), then they have reserved right not to license it to you.

In any case, don't argue it with me. In practice this would be your lawyers engaged with Meta and their lawyers, and product licensing team.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#828

Post by jerrygenser »

Anyone have benchmarks on how the llama 3 8b model performs when quantized to varying degrees? I reckon many people will be running these with llama.cpp or similar.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#829

Post by extraduder_ire »

dhon_ wrote: post #614
selcuka wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm seeing the same behaviour. It's as if they have a post-processor that evaluates the quality of the response after a certain number of tokens have been generated, and reverts the response if it's below a threshold.

I've noticed Gemini exhibiting similar behaviour. It will start to answer, for example, a programming question - only to delete the answer and replace it with something along the lines of "I'm only a language model, I don't know how to do that"

This seems like a bizarre way to handle this. Unless there's some level of malicious compliance, I don't see why they wouldn't just hide the output until the filtering step is completed. Maybe they're incredibly concerned about it appearing responsive in the average case.

Would not be surprised if there were browser extensions/userscripts to keep a copy of the text when it gets deleted and mark it as such.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#830

Post by mark_l_watson »

cm2012 wrote: post #820
vineyardmike wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also disagree on Google... Google's business is largely not predicated on AI the way everyone else is. Sure they hope it's a driver of growth, but if the entire LLM industry disappeared, they'd be fine. Google doesn't need AI "Superiority", they need "good enough" to prevent the masses from product switching. If the entire world is saturated in AI, then it no longer becomes a differentiator to drive switching. And…

AI is taking marketshare from search slowly. More and more people will go to the AI to find things and not a search bar. It will be a crisis for Google in 5-10 years.

I think I agree with you. I signed up for Perplexity Pro ($20/month) many months ago thinking I would experiment with it a month and cancel. Even though I only make about a dozen interactions a week, I can’t imagine not having it available.

That said, Google’s Gemini integration with Google Workplace apps is useful right now, and seems to be getting better. For some strange reason Google does not have Gemini integration with Google Calendar and asking the GMail integration what is on my schedule is only accurate if information is in emails.

I don’t intend to dump on Google, I liked working there and I use their paid for products like GCP, YouTube Plus, etc., but I don’t use their search all that often. I am paying for their $20/month LLM+Google One bundle, and I hope that evolves into a paid for high quality, no ad service.

Post reply on HN