- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
You know things are bad when Zuckerberg is looking like the good guy.
I’m off the same opinion, but why does Meta give a shit?
They have Meta AI baked into their apps now and are building a 10 Billion dollar AI facility in Louisiana that they want to use Nuclear Power to run.
So I’m guessing the plan is to hurt the competition that is already ahead of them and hopefully get enough time to buy them out or pass them.
They don’t want to pay for-profit prices?
They don’t use OpenAI at all.
Meta has some heavy sins, but they’ve pushed ‘open’ ML a long time. They developed, and continue to fund PyTorch, and they basically standardized the open LLM architecture with Llama to the point literally everyone publishing weights uses it almost unmodified now, just to name two examples.
They also have a commercial interest in their open weight model ecosystem succeeding over OpenAI’s completely closed models and research. And TBH they have a good shot, as OpenAI really seems to have stagnated.
Also, Altman is a straight up con artist. Like, more than most even realize. I wouldn’t be surprised if Facebook employees hate him.
If Open AI becomes for-profit, it will have more resources to finance itself. It is currently in a similar situation to Mozilla, and it is not the first case, there have been several.
One example was Mastercard, but in the process it created a foundation with the same name and it is also very rich. Open AI will probably follow a similar path
Also, Llama is not open source according to the OSI
It’s not open source, but open weights, documented, relatively permissively licensed and all the inference/finetuning libraries for it are open source.
I understand, but Meta has the rights to Llama and at any time they can change that license to make it less open just to make more money.
Currently it is open weight to attract customers, because once there are no competitors they will start to squeeze them.
Also competition is stiff. Alibaba is currently handing their butts to them with Qwen 2.5. Deepseek (a Chinese startup), tencent and Mistral (French) are giving them a run for their money too, and there are even some that “continue train” their old weights.
And what are those examples of those who continue training old weights?
A small startup called Arcee AI actually “distilled” logits from several other models (Llama, Mistral) and used the data to continue train Qwen 2.5 14B (which itself is Apache 2.0). It’s called supernova medius, and it’s quite incredible for a 14B model… SOTA as far as I know, even with their meager GPU resources.
A company called upstage “expands” models to larger parameter counts by continue training them. Look up the SOLAR series.
And quite notably, Nvidia continue trained Llama 3.1 70B and published the weights as Nemotron 70B. It was the best 70B model for awhile, and may still be in some areas.
And some companies like Cohere continuously train the same model slowly, and offer it over API, but occasionally publish the weights to promote them.
No, they can’t, because you can just pull the git repo with the old license as use them as they were at the time of upload, just like any software on a git repository. And too many people have them downloaded to delete them from the internet.
There are also finetunes inheriting the old license, and those orga are not going to pull the weights.
And in that case, will the Llama fork be the same as the Meta fork? We are talking about AI that has a considerable development, companies would probably not participate because it is not an open source license and its clause limits in those aspects.
Also you have to think that if the new version of Llama with the new license is 3 times better than Llama with the previous license, do you really think that the community will continue to develop the previous version?
And in that case, will the Llama fork be the same as the Meta fork? We are talking about AI that has a considerable development, companies would probably not participate because it is not an open source license and its clause limits in those aspects.
Llama has tons of commercial use even with its “non open” license, which is basically just a middle finger to companies the size of Google or Microsoft. And yes, companies would keep using the old weights like nothing changed… because nothing did. Just like they keep using open source software that goes through drama.
Also you have to think that if the new version of Llama with the new license is 3 times better than Llama with the previous license, do you really think that the community will continue to develop the previous version?
Honestly I have zero short term worries about this because the space is so fiercely competitive. If Llama 3 was completely closed, the open ecosystem would have been totally fine without Meta.
Also much of the ecosystem (like huggingface and inference libraries) is open source and out of their control.
And if they go API only, they will just get clobbered by Google, Claude, Deepseek or whomever.
In the longer term… these transformers style models will be obsolete anyway. Honestly I have no idea what the landscape will look like.
Can you say all that but with synonyms of the words “open” and “close” where they aren’t part of names? 😵💫
Call them ClosedAI like the community does, and it’s much easier, lol.
We the consumer protection we get in the US is the zuck
That’s bizarre
It seems normal to me that a company takes questionable actions to avoid more competition.
It seems fit for them to get burned because of it
