6 ms·
I'm a bit worried the LLaMA leak will make the labs much more cautious about who they distribute models to for future projects, closing down things even more.
by adeon 3y ago
I'm a bit worried the LLaMA leak will make the labs much more cautious about who they distribute models to for future projects, closing down things even more.
I've had tons of fun implementing LLaMA, learning and playing around with variations like Vicuna. I learned a lot and probably wouldn't have got so interested in this space if the leak didn't happen.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lagniappe 3y agoAn alternative interpretation was the LLaMa leak was an effort to shake or curtail the progress of ChatGPT's viral dominance at the time.
- seydor 3y ago"And as long as they’re going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade". That was ironically Bill Gates https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-apr-09-fi-micropiracy9-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-apr-09-fi-micro...
- rileyphone 3y agoIt took him a while to come around https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists
- elcomet 3y agoThey clearly expected the leak, they distributed it very widely to researchers. The important thing is the licence, not the access: you are not allowed to use it for commercial purpose.
- nkzd 3y agoHow could Meta ever find out your private business is using their model without a whistleblower? It's practically impossible.
- ben_w 3y agoI think you can make that argument for all behind-the-scenes commercial copyright infringement, surely?
- halotrope 3y agoYou can just ask if there is no output filtering
- guwop 3y agoThe future is going to be hilarious. Just ask the model who made it!
- barbariangrunge 3y agoDoes the model know, or will it just hallucinate an answer?
- dizhn 3y agoProbably both.
- PufPufPuf 3y agoYes, that's how software piracy has always worked.
- tel 3y agoHave reasonable suspicion, sue you, and then use discovery to find any evidence at all that your models began with LLaMA. Oh, you don't have substantial evidence for how you went from 0 to a 65B-parameter LLM base model? How curious.
- echelon 3y agoIf the copyright office determines model weights are uncopyrightable (huge if), then one might imagine any institutional leak would benefit everyone else in the space. You might see hackers, employees, or contractors leaking models more frequently. And since models are distilled functionality (no microservices and databases to deploy), they're much easier to run than a constellation of cloud infrastructure.
- outofpaper 3y agoThe copyright office already determined that AI artifacts are not covered by copyright protections. Any model created through unsupervised learning is this kind of artifact. At they same time they determined that creations that mix ai artifacts with human creation are covered by copyright protection.
- pclmulqdq 3y agoShouldn't that be the default position? The training methods are certainly patentable, but the actual input to the algorithm is usually public domain, and outputs of algorithms are not generally copyrightable as new works (think of to_lowercase(Harry Potter), which is not a copyrightable work), so the model weights would be a derivative work of public domain materials, and hence also forced into the public domain from a copyright perspective. They are generally trade secrets now, which is what actually protects them. Leaks of trade secrets are serious business regardless of the IP status of the work otherwise.
- vkou 3y agoI like your legal interpretation, but it's way too early to tell if it is one that accurately represents the reality of the situation. We won't know until this hits the courts.
- pclmulqdq 3y agoFor what it's worth, I've been working on a startup that involves training some models, and this is likely how we're going to be treating the legal stuff (and being very careful about how customers can interact with the models as a consequence). I assume people who have different incentives will take a different view, though.
- oliwarner 3y agoOn the other side of the coin, they've distracted a huge amount of attention from OpenAI and have open source optimisations appearing for every platform they could ever consider running it on, for no extra expense. If it was a deliberate leak, it was a good idea.
- Salgat 3y agoThat's a good point. They knew they couldn't compete with ChatGPT (even if performance was comparable, GPT has a massive edge in marketing) so they did the next best thing. This gives Meta a massive boost both to visibility and to open source contributions that ironically no other business can legally use.
- FooBarWidget 3y agoIf it was deliberate then why "leak" it instead of open sourcing it?
- paconbork 3y agoYou avoid taking flak from the Responsible AI people that way
- ru552 3y agoDing ding ding. "Leaks" are sometimes a strategy play.
- Salgat 3y agoAs I mentioned in my comment, a leak means that no other company (your competition) can use it, and you get to integrate all the improvements made by other people on it back into your closed source product.
- amrb 3y agoDevil's Advocate: The EU comes down hard on any AI company that doesn't work with researchers and institutions in future.
- RhodesianHunter 3y agoOutright banning due to fear seems far more likely.
- amrb 3y agoI mean it's a good power tool, cuts fast with little effort. But what's it gonna do in the hands of your parents or kids.. when it gets thing wrong, its could have way worst impact if it's intergrated in government, health care, finance etc..