871–880 of 965 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Llama is open weight, not open source. They don’t release all the things you need to reproduce their weights.
Which large model projects are open source in that sense? That its full source code including training material is published.
link: https://allenai.org/olmo
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm based on LLaMA 2, which is a type of transformer language model developed by Meta AI. LLaMA 2 is a more advanced version of the original LLaMA model, with improved performance and capabilities. I'm a specific instance of LLaMA 2, trained on a massive dataset of text from the internet, books, and other sources, and fine-tuned for conversational AI applications. My knowledge cutoff is December 2022, and I'm constan…
Strange. The Llama 3 model card mentions that the knowledge cutoff dates are March 2023 for the 8B version and December 2023 for the 70B version ( https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/MODEL_CARD.md )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point is Silicon Valley is such a place. "Visible nipples? The defining characteristic of all mammals, which infants necessarily have to put in their mouths to feed? On this website? Your account has been banned!" Meanwhile in Berlin, topless calendars in shopping malls and spinning-cube billboards for Dildo King all over the place.
TO be fair, its one of the most popular terms people search... So, lets not pretend its something that isnt arousing.
Ankles were arousing in 1800s Britain. They might still be in some places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
What a silly, provocative comparison. China is a suppressive state that strives to control its citizens while the EU privacy protection laws are put in place to protect citizens. If you cannot access websites from "the free world" because of these laws, it means that the providers of said websites are threatening your freedom, not providing it.
Lol this is the real silly provocative comparison.
China bans sites & apps from the West that violate their laws - the ad tracking, monitoring, censorship & influencer/fake news we have here... the funding schemes and market monopolizing that companies like Facebook do in the West is just not legal there. Can you blame them for not wanting it? You think Facebook is a great company for citizens, yet TikTok threatens freedom? Lol it's like I'm watching Fox News.
Companies that don't violate Chinese laws and approach China with realistic deals are allowed to operate there - you can play WoW in China because unlike Facebook it's not involved in censorship, severe privacy violations etc. and Blizzard actually worked with China (NetEase) to bring their product to market there instead of crying and trying to stoke WW3 in the news like our social media companies are doing. Just because Facebook and Google can do whatever they want unchecked in America and its vassal the EU, doesn't mean other countries have to allow it. I applaud China for upholding their rule of law and their traditions, and think it's healthy for the real unethical actors behind our companies to get told "No" for once in their lives.
US and its puppet EU just want to counter-block Chinese apps like TikTok in retaliation for them upholding their own rule of law. Sounds like you fell for the whole "China is a big scary oppressor" bit when the West is an actual oppressor - we have companies that control the entire market and media narrative over here - our companies and media can control whether or not white people can be hired, or can predict what you'll buy for lunch. Nobody has a more dangerous hold on citizens than western corporations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having an engineering mindset is not the same as never making mistakes (or never being too early to the market). The only way you won’t make those mistakes and keep a perfect record is if you never do anything major or step out of the comfort zone. If Apple didn’t try and fail with Newton[0] (which was too early to the market for many reasons, both tech-related and not), we might’ve not had iPhone today. The engineer…
His engineering mindset made him blind to the fact the metaverse was a product that nobody wanted or needed. In one of the Fridman interviews, he goes on and on about all the cool technical challenges involved in making the metaverse work. But when Fridman asked him what he likes to do in his spare time, it was all things that you could precisely not do in the metaverse. It was baffling to me that he failed to connec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
No argument here. You can either read it or you can't. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Source?
https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/LICENSE Llama is not open source. It's corporate freeware with some generous allowances. Open source licenses are a well defined thing. Meta marketing saying otherwise doesn't mean they get to usurp the meaning of a well understood and commonly used understanding of the term "open source." https://opensource.org/license Nothing about Meta's license is open source. It's a…
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…
Meta is a corporation, and not subject to rational, good faith human judgment. It's a construct that boils down to an algorithmic implementation of the rules, regulations, internal policies, communication channels, and all those complex interactions that effectively prevent sensible, good faith human intervention at any given stage that would even allow the company to just let people continue to violate their stated license. Like trademarks, if you don't enforce a contract, the inaction dissipates your ability to enforce it later on. They don't pay these lawyers to come up with these licenses and contracts for shits and giggles.
The license is not the outcome of a happy weekend brainstorm session tacked on ad hoc just to maximize the benefit to humanity and blissfully join the wide world of open source.
The license is intended to prevent any serious competitive use of their AI models by third parties. It was crafted deliberately and carefully and expensively. They didn't use existing open source licenses because no license offered them the particular mix of rights and restrictions that fit their overall strategy. It's for PR, the ability to stifle competition, to get free beta testing and market research, and 100% of every part of the license is intentional and an insidious perversion of the idea of "open."
Meta doesn't deserve credit, they deserve condemnation. They could have gone with any number of open source licenses, using GPL or CC licensing with specific provisions to protect their interests and prevent commercial exploitation, or use dual licensing to incentivize different tiers of access. They deliberately and with a high level of effort pursued their own invented license. They are using weasel words and claiming they are open source all over the place in order to foster good will.
The argument "but nobody has been sued" is more than a little silly. There's simply no product known to use their models currently on the market that's both a blatant enough violation and worth enough money to sacrifice the good will they've been fostering. There's no human in organizations that size with the capacity to step in and prevent the lawsuits from happening. It'll be a collective, rules and policies decision completely out of anyone's hands to prevent, even if Zuck himself wanted to intervene. The shareholders' interests reign supreme.
Meta isn't a moral institution. It's a ruthlessly profitable one.