4 ms·
Credit where credit is due, Meta has had a fantastic commitment towards open source ML. You love to see it.
by chrishare 3y ago
Credit where credit is due, Meta has had a fantastic commitment towards open source ML. You love to see it.
- joshspankit 3y agoYes but: if the commitment is driven by internal researchers and coders standing firm about making their work open source (a rumour I’ve heard a couple times), most of the credit goes to them.
- mvkel 3y agoWasn't LLaMa originally a leak that they were then forced to spin into an open source contribution? Not to diminish the value of the contribution, but "commitment" is an interesting word choice.
- hnfong 3y agoIt wasn't a leak in the typical sense. They sent the weights to pretty much everyone who asked nicely. When you send something interesting to thousands of people without vetting their credentials, you'd expect the stuff to get "leaked" out eventually (and sooner rather than later). I'd say it's more appropriate to say the weights were "pirated" than "leaked". That said, you're probably correct that the community that quickly formed around the "pirated" weights might have influenced Zuckerberg to decide to make llama2's more freely accessible.
- raxxorraxor 3y agoIf the image synthesis is an example, I believe this to be a winning strategy in the long run to get the most competent model. The LLM space just moves a bit slower since the entry requirements for compute power are that much higher and data preparation is maybe a bit more "dry" than tagging images.
- satvikpendem 3y agoMeta has source available licenses, not open source ones.
- Aissen 3y agoRedistributable and free to use weights does not make a model open source (even if it's really nice, with very few people having access to that kind of training power).