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

901–910 of 936 posts

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#901

Post by [deleted] »

inhumantsar wrote: post #890
epolanski wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it? You're looking at a gargantuan investment in terms of money that would also require thousands of staff. That just doesn't seem a good idea.

> gargantuan investment it's a bigger investment, but it's an investment which will pay dividends for decades. with a compute cluster, the government is taking on an asset in the form of the cluster but also liabilities in the form of operations and administration. with a fab, the government takes on either a promise of lower taxes for N years or hands over a bag of cash. after that they're clear of it. the company o…

[deleted]

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#902

Post by ssahoo »

rmbyrro wrote: post #834
ssahoo wrote: post #831

Additional Commercial Terms. If, on the Llama 3.1 version release date, the monthly active users of the products or services made available by or for Licensee, or Licensee’s affiliates, is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month, you must request a license from Meta, which Meta may grant to you in its sole discretion, and you are not authorized to exercise any of the rights under…

Which open source costs dedicated usage of 16 thousand H100 over several months? C'mon folks, they're opening up for free to 99.99% of potential users what cost hundreds of millions of dollars, if not in the ballpark of a billion. Let's appreciate that, instead of focusing on semantics for a while.

Just call it not open-source? May be. Freemium?

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#903

Post by dang »

ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: post #9

On every post like this on hacker news, I post my pro meta speech. My opinion has always been the same: 1. Meta pushed engineering wages higher across the industry. 2. They promote high performing engineers very quickly. There are engineers making 7 figures there with just a few years experience. 3. They have open sourced the most important frameworks: React and Pytorch This company is a guiding light forcing the han…

Ok, but please don't post repetitive comments or recite speeches on HN. We're trying to avoid that kind of thing here, because repetition is tedious and bad for curiosity.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#904

Post by dang »

givinguflac wrote: post #19
ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: post #9

On every post like this on hacker news, I post my pro meta speech. My opinion has always been the same: 1. Meta pushed engineering wages higher across the industry. 2. They promote high performing engineers very quickly. There are engineers making 7 figures there with just a few years experience. 3. They have open sourced the most important frameworks: React and Pytorch This company is a guiding light forcing the han…

[flagged]

Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN, even if someone else started it. We're trying to avoid that here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#905

Post by gradientsrneat »

noiseinvacuum wrote: post #378
Salgat wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason for Meta making their model open source is rather simple: They receive an unimaginable amount of free labor, and their license only excludes their major competitors to ensure mass adoption without benefiting their competition (Microsoft, Google, Alibaba, etc). Public interest, philanthropy, etc are just nice little marketing bonuses as far as they're concerned (otherwise they wouldn't be including this lic…

All correct, Meta does obviously benefit. It's helpful to also look at what do the developers and companies (everyone outside of top 5/10 big tech companies) get out of this. They get open access to weights of SOTA LLM models that take billions of dollars to train and 10s of billions a year to run the AI labs that make these. They get the freedom to fine tune them, to distill them, and to host them on their own hardw…

Interesting. So llama isn't actually open source! That would partially explain why they feel their moat isn't compromised.

Also... Wow, Mark Zuckerberg is such a liar! Implying that llama is open source when it isn't, while at the same time trying to gather the goodwill of FOSS developers.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#906

Post by [deleted] »

gradientsrneat wrote: post #905
noiseinvacuum wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All correct, Meta does obviously benefit. It's helpful to also look at what do the developers and companies (everyone outside of top 5/10 big tech companies) get out of this. They get open access to weights of SOTA LLM models that take billions of dollars to train and 10s of billions a year to run the AI labs that make these. They get the freedom to fine tune them, to distill them, and to host them on their own hardw…

Interesting. So llama isn't actually open source! That would partially explain why they feel their moat isn't compromised. Also... Wow, Mark Zuckerberg is such a liar! Implying that llama is open source when it isn't, while at the same time trying to gather the goodwill of FOSS developers.

[deleted]

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#908

Post by notfed »

endorphine wrote: post #606
whimsicalism wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

making food that people want to buy is good actually i am not down with this concept of the chattering class deciding what are good markets and what are bad, unless it is due to broad-based and obvious moral judgements.

Except of 90% of the food in the supermarket shelves out there, which is packed in sugar and conservatives.

[flagged]

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#909

Post by consf »

justneedaname wrote: post #812
sgu999 wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know?

The comment history does read much like you'd expect from a bot, lots of short, generic statements that vaguely tie to the subject of the post

There was no need to scroll through my history and analyze it. Your analysis is mistaken. I'm not a bot. Sometimes my comments are brief because I'm trying to be concise. I don't just express my agreement with a simple 'I agree', but respond in a more detailed manner yet also shortly.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#910

Post by MaxBarraclough »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #893
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #892

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the case of a pork producer who labels their products as 'vegan', that's different because there is some authority behind the usage of 'vegan'. I don't see the difference. Open source software is a term of art with a specific meaning accepted by its community. When people misuse the term, invariably in such a way as to broaden it to include whatever it is they're pushing, it's right that the community responds h…

Terms of art do not require licenses. A given term is either an ordinary dictionary word that everyone including the courts will readily recognize ("Vegan"), a trademark ("Microsoft® Office 365™"), or a fragment of language that everyone can feel free to use for their own purposes without asking permission. "Open Source" falls into the latter category. This kind of argument is literally why trademark law exists. OSI di…

> Terms of art do not require licenses.

Agreed. There is no trademark on aileron or carburetor or context-free grammar. A couple of years ago I made this same point myself. [0]

> A given term is either an ordinary dictionary word that everyone including the courts will readily recognize ("Vegan"), a trademark ("Microsoft® Office 365™"), or a fragment of language that everyone can feel free to use for their own purposes without asking permission. "Open Source" falls into the latter category.

This taxonomy doesn't hold up.

Again, it's a term of art with a clear meaning accepted by its community. We've seen numerous instances of cynical and deceptive misuse of the term, which the community rightly calls out because it's not fair play, it's deliberate deception.

> This kind of argument is literally why trademark law exists

It is not. Trademark law exists to protect brands, not to clarify terminology.

You seem to be contradicting your earlier point that terms of art do not require licenses.

> OSI did not elect to go down that path. Maybe they should have, but I respect their decision not to, and perhaps you should, too.

I haven't expressed any opinion on that topic, and I don't see a need to.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31203209

Post reply on HN