14 ms·
Key detail from release: > If, on the Llama 2 version release date, the monthly active users of the products or services made available by or for Licensee, or
by whimsicalism 3y ago
Key detail from release:
> If, on the Llama 2 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 this Agreement unless or until Meta otherwise expressly grants you such rights.
Looks like they are trying to block out competitors, it's the perfect commoditize your complement but don't let your actual competitors try to eke out any benefit from it.
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago> greater than 700 million monthly active users Hmm. Sounds like specifically a FAANG ban. I personally don't mind. But would this be considered anti-competitive and illegal? Not that Google/MS/etc. don't already have their own LLMs.
- whimsicalism 3y agoI'm not sure. It actually sort of reminds me of a private version of the EU DMA legislation where they try to define a small group of 'gatekeepers' and only have the legislation impact them.
- cheeseface 3y agoMost likely they want cloud cloud providers (Google, AWS, and MS) to pay for selling this as a service.
- YetAnotherNick 3y agoAWS specifically I think which has history of selling others' products as service. I think Google has better model(Bard 2) and microsoft has rights to openAI models.
- DebtDeflation 3y agoThey simultaneously announced a deal with MS to make Azure the preferred cloud host. This is aimed at Google and Amazon.
- gmerc 3y agoAWS is on the partner list
- minimaxir 3y agoThat's an oddly high number for blocking competition. OpenAI's ChatGPT hit 100 million MAUs in January, and has gone down since. It's essentially a "Amazon and Google don't use this k thx."
- stu2b50 3y agoI think more Apple. It's not like Google or Microsoft would want to use LLaMA when they have fully capable models themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon does as well. Apple is the big laggard in terms of big tech and complex neural network models.
- whimsicalism 3y agoGoogle's model is not as capable as llama-derived models, so I think they would actually benefit from this. > I wouldn't be surprised if Amazon does as well. I would - they are not a very major player in this space. TikTok also meets this definition and probably doesn't have LLM.
- dooraven 3y ago> Google's model is not as capable as llama-derived models, so I think they would actually benefit from this. Google's publically available model isn't as capable. But they certainly have models that are far better already in house.
- whimsicalism 3y agoI have no idea how you are so certain of that. Meta is definitely ahead of Google in terms of NLP expertise and has been for a while. I suspect that Google released their best model at the time with Bard.
- dooraven 3y agoWe still don't have access to Imagen last I checked, it's still in restricted access. We don't have access to SoundStorm or MusicLM https://imagen.research.google/ https://imagen.research.google/ https://google-research.github.io/seanet/soundstorm/examples/ https://google-research.github.io/seanet/soundstorm/examples... https://google-research.github.io/seanet/musiclm/examples/ https://google-research.github.io/seanet/musiclm/examples/ Why would it be surprising that they have better models for resarch that they don't want to give out yet?
- rahimnathwani 3y ago> Looks like they are trying to block out competitors But only existing competitors. If you don't yet have 700MM MAU, the impact of this is only that, after you reach 700MM MAU, you can't get future versions of the Llama models for free. You can still continue to use versions that were released before you reached that threshold. For reference, neither Instagram nor WhatsApp had 700MM MAU at the time Facebook decided to acquire them.
- quickthrower2 3y agoCue the zombie startups who sell to (various tech giants) for a million with their only IP being to loophole this agreement.
- alexeldeib 3y agohttps://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/07/18/microsoft-and-meta-expand-their-ai-partnership-with-llama-2-on-azure-and-windows/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/07/18/microsoft-and-me... I think this is effectively an Apple + Amazon + Google ban? (MS employee, just noticing interesting intersection of announcements and licensing).
- gregw134 3y agoProbably TikTok too
- rileyphone 3y agoWow, that looks so bad from an anti-trust/competitiveness standpoint. M$ is embracing AI just like it embraced the internet 25 years ago.
- _2d30 3y agoYeah and look how they extended and extinguished that!
- zamadatix 3y agoTo be fair on that, both the US and EU governments launched antitrust cases around that with the US case narrowly avoiding having the company split up and the EU ruling resulting in requirements the browser be decoupled, followed by half a billion in fines for not doing so well enough. Not that the two situations are anything alike, but a "and look what happened with that" argument hardly points away from valid antitrust outcomes.
- alexeldeib 3y agoI think you and parent/GP all agree? A thing can be anti competitive, and a strategic failure.
- zamadatix 3y ago
- costcofries 3y agoMicrosoft announced today that they will use Llama on Azure and Windows scenarios. Source: https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/07/18/microsoft-and-meta-expand-their-ai-partnership-with-llama-2-on-azure-and-windows/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/07/18/microsoft-and-me...
- cfn 3y agoIt doesn't look like a block to me, more a "please call us to discuss terms".
- tim_sw 3y agoDefense against tiktok and bytedance
- jahewson 3y agoIs there a good name for this kind of license? If not I propose “de-FANGed”.
- insanitybit 3y agoLots of products will never have anywhere near 700 million monthly active users, or even 1/10,000th of that, and they can still leverage this for free. Any company at 700m active users is likely worth billions and can pay.
- varelse 3y ago[dead]
- villgax 3y agoYou will not use the Llama Materials or any output or results of the Llama Materials to improve any other large language model (excluding Llama 2 or derivative works thereof).
- amelius 3y ago> If, on the Llama 2 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 (...) I suggest we start doing a similar thing for FOSS projects. I.e., it's open source unless you are MegaCorp with profit > $1B, then you have to pay. Sounds fair to me, and might help FOSS to get some better funding.
- vorpalhex 3y agoThen your project would no longer be FOSS.
- amelius 3y agoDepends on what you value more. Strict adherence to some definition someone once made up, or sustainable funding of your project. If it bothers you, you can call it FOSS* instead.
- blackoil 3y ago> sustainable funding of your project You can always make a commercial closed source project.
- nailer 3y agoThis project is not open source. That part of the license violates the open source definition. Meta AI is lying when they write Llama 2 is open source .
- Havoc 3y agoWhile not ideal at least the limit set is chunky
- stygiansonic 3y agoShould have been an asterisk on the headline like “free … for commercial* use”
- feoren 3y agoMaybe anti-Twitter? Aren't Elon and Zuck having a spat?
- spacebanana7 3y agoTwitter only has 300-400 million MAU [1] so I don’t think they’d be immediately affected. Although I suppose they might have an aim of growing past 700m and therefore be deterred. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/303681/twitter-users-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/303681/twitter-users-wor...
- londons_explore 3y agoThe term is carefully written... The user count only matters on the day Llama 2 is released. Which means this doesn't deter any company with growth plans.
- eigenvalue 3y agoSeems like quite a reasonable restriction that certainly isn't going to hurt the small guy. If you have that many users, you can probably afford to develop your own foundational model!
- namelosw 3y agoUsually I don't like anti-competition clause like this, but the number seems to target only FANG level competitors. Maybe we should give it a good name and hopefully seeing OSS adopt this.
- quickthrower2 3y agoAhh…. these Willy Wonka contracts
- jxcole 3y agoSurely any one with 700 million users could just build their own?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- aloer 3y agoLately I’ve been wondering if a license similar to this but instead based on market cap could be a way to monetize open source projects E.g. 100k/year for each trillion in market cap, updated yearly. First trillion is free
- cududa 3y agoSeems mostly very doable. Back in 2011 at my (failed) startup we had a license like that with an NLP provider/ vendor. I don't remember the exact details, but, one caveat was that we HAD to have an equity part to the deal to satisfy Delaware Law/ some other esoteric bit I don't recall. We already had negotiated an equity stake baked into the agreement, but I do recall that being a very specific requirement both our lawyers raised. I wonder how you could scale something like your proposed scenario and the overhead for the equity requirement, for open source projects.
- londons_explore 3y agoProblem is then it wouldn't be truly open source. And if your project isn't opensource, a lot of other projects can't include/link/build on your project.
- johannes1234321 3y agoSo I create a company, which serves as a proxy, keeping my market cap low (yay private company) and sell the service of running your open source software for others. One way or another it will be tricked.
- londons_explore 3y ago"This license is revocable at any time, if, in the opinion of the author, the spirit of the license isn't being upheld".
- IanCal 3y agoIt can be, but I think at this scale it's both very hard to hide and very easy to negotiate a real deal. If you've got a billion users and you think you can offer a worthwhile service you can pay for people to negotiate a license. Dealing with a bunch of tiny companies carefully constructed or who happen to set themselves up just isn't going to be worth the hassle. The limit here is about 10% of the worlds population.
- tootie 3y agoAre they not within their rights to spell it out? Can they just say "free for everyone except Google and Microsoft"?
- el_nahual 3y agoPeople keep saying this is commoditize your complement but that's not what this is! Goods A and B are economic complements if, when the price of A goes down, demand for B goes up. LLMs are not complements to social media platforms. There is zero evidence that if "the price of LLMs goes down" then "demand for social media apps go up". This is a case of commoditizing the competition but that's not the same thing. Commoditizing your complement: - All-inclusive resorts. Restaurants are a complement to hotels. If food is free I might go on vacation more. - Smartphone app-stores. Apps are a complement to phones. If apps cost $0.99 there will be more demand for iphones than if apps cost $20. This is Zuck being an absolute shark and not wanting his competitors to have a monopoly over LLMs in case they win at some other game. It has nothing to do with "commoditize your complement."
- meindnoch 3y ago>LLMs are not complements to social media platforms Tell that to the people generating text for social media campaigns using LLMs.
- el_nahual 3y agoDo those campaigns increase or decrease engagement? My gut is that LLM use will decrease social media demand.
- austhrow743 3y agoSocial media demand is only important to the extent that more demand and engagement means more advertising opportunity. If LLM use decreases them while allowing advertisers to more effectively advertise, enough to offset the decrease, then it’s absolutely a complement,
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- raincole 3y agoIf we're going to theory-crafting, I think if the price of LLMs goes down, the demand for social media should go down too. Cause it's easy to make social media platforms worse with LLMs.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- spookie 3y agoCome on.. It's completely understandable. Why would they treat giants the same way as everyone else? I don't know what to make out of these responses, it's completely legitimate and in their right to do this. At least they release their stuff.