For these open source experts, it's all about standards. For Meta, it's all about the money.
  • cyd@lemmy.worldEnglish
    52·
    2 hours ago

    Aww come on. There’s plenty to be mad at Zuckerberg about, but releasing Llama under a semi-permissive license was a massive gift to the world. It gave independent researchers access to a working LLM for the first time. For example, Deepseek got their start messing around with Llama derivatives back in the day (though, to be clear, their MIT-licensed V3 and R1 models are not Llama derivatives).

    As for open training data, its a good ideal but I don’t think it’s a realistic possibility for any organization that wants to build a workable LLM. These things use trillions of documents in training, and no matter how hard you try to clean the data, there’s definitely going to be something lawyers can find to sue you over. No organization is going to open themselves up to the liability. And if you gimp your data set, you get a dumb AI that nobody wants to use.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.caEnglish
    11·
    10 hours ago

    Looking at any picture of mark suckerberg makes you believe that they are very much ahead with AI and robotics.

    Either way, fuck Facebook, stop trying to ruin everything good in the world.

  • 3aqn5k6ryk@lemmy.worldEnglish
    881·
    1 day ago

    I dont give a fuck what you want mark. nobody is. what i want is for you to fuck off.

  • Ulrich@feddit.orgEnglish
    374·
    1 day ago

    Money? Is it money?

    clicks article

    For Meta, it’s all about the money.

    Shocking.

    • LillyPip@lemmy.caEnglish
      147·
      1 day ago

      I taught myself programming in the 80s, then worked myself from waitress and line cook to programmer, UXD, and design lead to the point of being in the running for an Apple design award in the 2010s.

      But I cared more than anything about making things FOR people. Making like easier. Making people happy. Making software that was a joy to use.

      Then I got sick with something that’s neither curable nor easily manageable.

      Now I’m destitute and have to choose between medicine and food, and I’m staring down homelessness. (eta I was homeless from age 16-18, and I won’t do that again now, with autoimmune dysautonomia and in my mid-50s, even if the alternative is final.)

      Fuck these idiots who bought their way into nerd status (like Musk) or had one hot idea that took off and didn’t have to do anything after (this fucking guy). Hundreds or thousands of designers and programmers made these companies, and were tossed out like trash so a couple of people can be rock stars, making more per hour than most of us will see in a lifetime.

      Slay the dragons.

      • Strider@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        13 hours ago

        I’m sorry you had to go through this and are suffering. There are people that can (literally) feel your pain, I hope that can give some comfort.

        I’m lucky to be in Europe, otherwise I would (very likely) be dead and broke if not.

        • futatorius@lemm.eeEnglish
          22·
          22 hours ago

          His “idea” was about how to monetize a concept already in existence on MySpace, facilitated by completely ignoring any ethical constraints. That, and a snobbery-based product launch through the Ivies.

        • LillyPip@lemmy.caEnglish
          12·
          23 hours ago

          You’re right. I forgot about the lawsuit and settlement (for $65m). They’re both frauds.

    • don@lemm.eeEnglish
      211·
      1 day ago

      The time it took me to reach this conclusion, after seeing the headline, is measured in quectoseconds.

  • will_a113@lemmy.mlEnglish
    151·
    1 day ago

    Kinda funny how when mega corps can benefit from the millions upon millions of developer hours that they’re not paying for they’re all for open source. But when the mega corps have to ante up (with massive hardware purchases out of reach of any of said developers) they’re suddenly less excited about sharing their work.

  • fuzzy_feeling@programming.devEnglish
    667·
    1 day ago

    Meta’s Llama models also impose licensing restrictions on its users. For example, if you have an extremely successful AI program that uses Llama code, you’ll have to pay Meta to use it. That’s not open source. Period.

    open source != no license restrictions

    According to Meta, “Existing open source definitions for software do not encompass the complexities of today’s rapidly advancing AI models. We are committed to keep working with the industry on new definitions to serve everyone safely and responsibly within the AI community.”

    i think, he’s got a point, tho

    is ai open source, when the trainig data isn’t?
    as i understand, right now: yes, it’s enough, that the code is open source. and i think that’s a big problem

    i’m not deep into ai, so correct me if i’m wrong.

    • airglow@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      18 hours ago

      Software licenses that “discriminate against any person or group of persons” or “restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor” are not open source. Llama’s license doesn’t just restrict Llama from being used by companies with “700 million monthly active users”, it also restricts Llama from being used to “create, train, fine tune, or otherwise improve an AI model” or being used for military purposes (although Meta made an exception for the US military). Therefore, Llama is not open source.

      • Syntha@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        21·
        18 hours ago

        The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources

        So as I understand it, under the OSI definition of the word, anything distributed under a copyleft licence would not be open source.

        So all software with GNU GPL, for example.

        • airglow@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          17 hours ago

          That’s incorrect. GPL licenses are open source.

          The GPL does not restrict anyone from selling or distributing GPL-licensed software as a component of an aggregate software distribution. For example, all Linux distributions contain GPL-licensed software, as the Linux kernel is GPLv2.

    • umbraroze@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      20 hours ago

      Open source software doesn’t, by definition, place restrictions on usage.

      The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor.

      Clauses like “you can use this software freely except in specific circumstances” fly against that. Open source licenses usually have very little to say about what the software should be used for, and usually just as an affirmation that you can use the software for whatever you want.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      183·
      1 day ago

      I don’t think any of our classical open licenses from the 80s and 90s were ever created with AI in mind. They are inadequate. An update or new one is needed.

      Stallman, spit out the toe cheese and get to work.

    • GoodEye8@lemm.eeEnglish
      35·
      23 hours ago

      I understand the same way and I think there’s a lot of gray area which makes it hard to just say “the data also needs to be open source for the code to be open source”. What would that mean for postgreSQL? Does it magically turn closed source if I don’t share what’s in my db? What would it mean to every open source software that stores and uses that stored data?

      I’m not saying the AI models shouldn’t be open source, I’m saying reigning in the models needs to be done very carefully because it’s very easy to overreach and open up a whole other can of worms.