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

931–936 of 936 posts

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#931

Post by sailingparrot »

wrs wrote: post #896
sailingparrot wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you change the tokenizer? Yes. You can change it however you like, then look at the paper [1] under section 3.2. to know which hyperparameters were used during training and finetune the model to work with your new tokenizer using e.g. FineWeb [2] dataset. You'll need to do only a fraction of the training you would have needed to do if you were to start a training from scratch for your tokenizer of choice. The w…

You can change the tokenizer and build another model, if you can come up with your own version of the rest of the source (e.g., the training set, RLHF, etc.). You can’t change the tokenizer for this model, because you don’t have all of its source.

There is nothing that requires you to train with the same training set, or to re-do RLHF. You can train on fineweb, and llama 3.1 will learn to use your new tokenizer just fine.

There is 0 doubt that you are better of finetuning that model to use your tokenizer than training from scratch. So what Meta gives you for free massively helps you building your model, that's OSS to me.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#932

Post by ab5tract »

miffy900 wrote: post #686
ab5tract wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, honest open source advocates won’t take issue to how I framed their position. Here’s a more important point: how far would the open source people have gotten without GCC and glibc? Much less far than they will ever admit, in my experience.

> Most of us who were there remember it differently. True open source advocates will find little to refute in what I’ve said. > Like I said, honest open source advocates won’t take issue to how I framed their position. Yet you've failed to provide even a single point of evidence to back up your claim. > "honest open source advocates" You've literally just made this term up. It's meaningless.

It’s not a term, it’s a phrase. It means “open source advocates who are being honest about their advocacy”, in case you really need such a degree of clarification.

I’ve met honest open source advocates before and, once again, they would be unlikely to refute the fact that “open source” was invented in explicit contrast to “free software” to achieve corporate palatability.

The comment you are responding to was literally responding to a comment which validated this exact sentiment.

As to providing evidence, those of us who were there at the time don’t need any and those of you who weren’t ought to seek some. It’s not my job to link to the nearly infinite number of conversations where this obvious dynamic played out.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#933

Post by jart »

kataklasm wrote: post #754
jart wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm perfectly happy with them draining the life essence out of the people crazy enough to still use Facebook, if they're funneling the profits into advancing human progress with AI. It's an Alfred Nobel kind of thing to do.

It's not often you see a take this bad on HN. Wow! You are aware Facebook tracks everyone, not just people with Facebook accounts, right? They have a history of being anti-consumer in every sense of the word. So while I can understand where you're coming from, it's just not anywhere close to being reality. If you want to or not, if you consent or not, Facebook is tracking and selling you.

Oh no! Facebook knows who I am!

No they are not selling me. How can they sell my attention to advertisers when I don't look at their ads? How can they influence me if I don't engage with their algorithm? You're the one who's trying to sell me your fear and mistrust.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#934

Post by _proofs »

apwell23 wrote: post #433
bun_at_work wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure - there is plenty of attention grabbing AI content - it doesn't have to grab _your_ attention, and it won't work for everyone. I have seen people engaging with apps that redo a selfie to look like a famous character or put the person in a movie scene, for example. Every piece of content in any feed (good, bad, or otherwise) benefits the aggregator (Meta, YouTube, whatever), because someone will look at it. Not e…

> it doesn't have to grab _your_ attention I am talking about in general, not me personally. No popular content on any website/platform is AI generated. Maybe you have examples that lead you believe that its possible on a mass scale. > look like a famous character or put the person in a movie scene what attention grabbing movie used gen ai persons

i'd say reddit is a pretty great example, twitter, even instagram or facebook comments, where bot generated traffic and comments are a norm.

you have plenty of bot or "AI/LLM" generated content, that is consumed -- up to and including things like "news".

as for the comment about movies, i'm confused -- CGI has been a thing for a long time, and "AI" has been used to convey aging or how a person might look given some conditions, on screen, as well as a whole host of things.

while this might not be an LLM, it is certainly computer generated, predictive, and artificially generated.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#935

Post by bjt12345 »

tmsh wrote: post #431

Software 2.0 is about open licensing. I.e., the more important thing - the more "free" thing - is the licensing now. E.g., I play around with different image diffusion models like Stable Diffusion and specific fine-tuned variations for ControlNet or LoRA that I plug into ComfyUI. But I can't use it at work because of the licensing. I have to use InvokeAI instead of ComfyUI if I want to be careful and only very specif…

The LLAMA 3.1 license addresses some of this.

Re: Open source AI is the path forward

#936

Post by lukas099 »

sebastiennight wrote: post #898
lukas099 wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The signal:noise ratio is decreasing because it’s easier to generate noise. I think paying for content (or content curation) is probably the way to curate high-signal information feeds.

Just like ads in your Netflix subscription, there is a large profit incentive to charge you for the "high-signal information feeds" and then... fill it with AI-generated content, which is much cheaper to offer. ¿Porqué no los dos?

I’m okay with AI being used in creative processes where the output is vetted by an actual human. If there’s AI generated content in Netflix ads, I’m guessing it’s of this type.

There’s also the option to move on from Netflix if you don’t like its content

Post reply on HN