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

91–100 of 168 posts

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#91

Post by simion314 »

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.

>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.

The problem with current AI is that they memorize stuff, there is the case with the AI memorizing an algorithm perfectly, or reciting quotes from Dune and then getting censored.

Now you as a paying user of this AI tools are not making reviews but probably using them for commercial purposes and it would not be fiar if your proprietary code would use code copy pasted from GPL code.

If this AI would be so clever then IMO you could have them laarn say Python exactly like a human, a few books and some exercises on python, some books on algorithms, some books on html or whatever tech. But today they train with the full github and you get a mix of stuff. My suggestion would also improve the sorry state of JS in ChatGPT where it uses super old syntax and still uses outdated pattern like it is coding for IE6. My guess this is because it is train with old or bad code and this mean a=most of the code from now one will be old syntax and bad

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#92

Post by Spivak »

haswell wrote: post #69
andybak wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's far from certain at this stage whether this does break the law.

While this may be true, the reverse is also true, and even if it’s legal, there are other ways to frame this that are worth considering, e.g. It could technically be legal, but not in accordance with the spirit of the law. Updates to laws are required. The fact that the model is legal is an additional problem on top of the gap in the law. I think my main point here is that “legal” does not imply moral or acceptable t…

Right but if you have a plausible case you weren't breaking the law and it was a legal unknown the most that will happen is "we've decided this is officially illegal, stop doing it."

You risk nothing by assuming things are legal until explicitly illegal.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#93

Post by Der_Einzige »

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…

I’ve been wondering when the landmark moral panic would start against Civit.AI and the coomer crowd. People have no idea just how much porn is being produced by this stuff. One of the top textual inversions right now is a… age slider… (https://civitai.com/models/65214/age-slider) ewww. It’s also extremely well rated and reviewed on there. I’m terrified at the impending backlash because depending on what happens the party going on in AI could end

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#95

Post by Der_Einzige »

schleck8 wrote: post #49
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…

Really, really bad look for Eleuther if this is true. I did not expect them do something like this and not even see the issue with it.

Most large datasets are full of copyrighted content. They aren’t unique.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#96

Post by Spivak »

doctoboggan wrote: post #76
innagadadavida wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think it matters. Your review isn't copyright infringement because you pirated the movie.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#97

Post by amelius »

forgingahead wrote: post #63

Zuck is a total killer. What better way to fight Google and Microsoft than to effectively spawn thousands of potential competitors to their AI businesses with this (and other) releases. There will be a mad scramble over the released weights to develop new tech, these startups will raise tons of money, and then fight the larger incumbents. This is not charity, this is a shrewd business move.

"Commoditize your complement"

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#98

Post by zargon »

doctoboggan wrote: post #80
ssd532 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Open source is about freedom to modify the product. So in the context of an LLM, the source code is the data and the code that processes the data during *training* (not only inference), as that is what generates the weights.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#99

Post by 411111111111111 »

TX81Z wrote: post #71
ramshanker wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

You state this as a fact, but it's actually much less certain wherever it's ever been net-positive.

It was probably intended that way, but the reality is that the power has been with the publisher since the beginning, and they've absolutly been screwing over the author's as well. Only the most successful author's have gotten decent deals.

I don't have an answer to this either though, i just wanted to point out that copyright has arguably never been successful at getting money to the content creators proportional to the value the Publisher extracted from the work either.

Re: Meta to release open-source commercial AI model

#100

Post by NBJack »

xnx wrote: post #86
twayt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's an area of active research: https://ai.googleblog.com/2023/06/announcing-first-machine-u...

Which means we are probably at least 5-10 years away from verifiable action that a court of law will recognize.
Post reply on HN