15 ms·

Meta does everything OpenAI should be

DueDilligence 2y ago
[dead]
halfmatthalfcat 2y ago
When we say should be, this assumes some kind of intention, no? Meta making things open is a means, not an end. The end is to weaken competition to position itself economically. The end is not to make things "open" in and of itself which is what the charter of OpenAI is (was?).
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  It's better if people are incentivised to do something than that they just decide to, or (as with OpenAI) decide to against incentive.
- andersa 2y ago
  It never was. During their brief fight with Elon Musk they revealed old emails clearly stating that releasing things openly was only a ruse to attract talent at first and they never intended to do that with good AI models.
  - hyperhopper 2y ago
    Do you have a source on this?
    - ronsor 2y ago
      The horse is condemned by its own mouth: https://openai.com/blog/openai-elon-musk https://openai.com/blog/openai-elon-musk > As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes).
      - the_other 2y ago
        It's not "science" if it's not shared. It's just "business intelligence".
        mensetmanusman 2y ago
        Science doesn't care about sharing. See nukes
        the_other 2y ago
        Nukes are “business intelligence” (or national secrets if you will) plus engineering. The science (atoms, forces, power, energy) was already shared.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        > The horse is condemned by its own mouth Words like this suggest a failure of imagination. Given it's their own mouth and they're writing in their own defence, what might be a more generous interpretation?
        hhjinks 2y ago
        The only more generous interpretation I can see is that OpenAI actually did intend to be open, but only between December 11th 2015 to January 2nd 2016, at which point they had changed their mind.
        ben_w 2y ago
        The paragraph immediately preceding the quotation is: "The article is concerned with a hard takeoff scenario: if a hard takeoff occurs, and a safe AI is harder to build than an unsafe one, then by opensorucing everything, we make it easy for someone unscrupulous with access to overwhelming amount of hardware to build an unsafe AI, which will experience a hard takeoff." The article in question appears to be: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/12/17/should-ai-be-open/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/12/17/should-ai-be-open/ Which opens with: """H.G. Wells’ 1914 sci-fi book The World Set Free did a pretty good job predicting nuclear weapons: They did not see it until the atomic bombs burst in their fumbling hands…before the last war began it was a matter of common knowledge that a man could carry about in a handbag an amount of latent energy sufficient to wreck half a city""" and, I hope I'm summarising usefully rather than cherry-picking because it's quite long, also says: """Once again: The decision to make AI findings open source is a tradeoff between risks and benefits. The risk is that in a world with hard takeoffs and difficult control problems, you get superhuman AIs that hurl everybody off cliffs. The benefit is that in a world with slow takeoffs and no control problems, nobody will be able to use their sole possession of the only existing AI to garner too much power. But the benefits just aren’t clear enough to justify that level of risk. I’m still not even sure exactly how the OpenAI founders visualize the future they’re trying to prevent. Are AIs fast and dangerous? Are they slow and easily-controlled? Does just one company have them? Several companies? All rich people? Are they a moderate advantage? A huge advantage? None of those possibilities seem dire enough to justify OpenAI’s tradeoff against safety.""" and """Elon Musk famously said that AIs are “potentially more dangerous than nukes”. He’s right – so AI probably shouldn’t be open source any more than nukes should."" This is what OpenAI and Musk were discussing in the context of responding to "I've seen you […] doing a lot of interviews recently extolling the virtues of open sourcing AI, but I presume you realise that this is not some sort of panacea that will somehow magically solve the safety problem?"
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- karmakaze 2y ago
  Meta wants to profit from the use of AI not the making/selling of it. Commoditize Your Complement and all that. Having this understanding of why is enough to be comfortable with alignment. The Meta offerings should be under the umbrella name "FreeAI" analogous to Free Software (e.g. FSF) vs the more commercial leaning Open-Source. Heck everyone should contribute to it and make it a movement so "Free" is both an adjective and a verb.
- nolok 2y ago
  I agree, except in the case of OpenAI it should be an end, and yet they fail at it spectacularly, and since Altman/Microsoft finished their takeover there is basically no hope of it ever coming back.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    The OpenAI charter specifically says "safe". We're all arguing over what that even means for an AI. If you're at all risk adverse, that argument by itself should be a hint that releasing the weights of a model. For example, the last few years have seen a lot of angry comments about how "the algorithm" (for both social media feeds and Google search results) is politically biased. IIRC we don't know the full set of training data (data includes RLHF responses before anyone points me to the Wikipedia page I already read that lists some data sources) how can we be confident that any model from Facebook has not been specifically trained to drive a specific political agenda?
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      The safety argument has proven complete BS now that they commercialize the unsafe AI…
      - anon373839 2y ago
        I can’t believe anyone buys it anymore. It feels like it was just yesterday when they were begging for a pause on training “dangerous” models (where danger was defined as “anything better than our flagship product”).
        ben_w 2y ago
        The request has become law and there aren't any models clearly better than their flagship.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        "The" safety argument? You think there's only one? "The unsafe AI"? Which one would this be? Would it be the one which so many people on this very website complain has been "lobotomised"? (No matter how much I object to that word in this context, that's what people call it).
- hzay 2y ago
  The end neither justifies nor undermines the means.
- dimask 2y ago
  Making things open is a means, not an end, _in general_. The end is what we do with these things. What you call "competition" I would call "monopoly". A healthy, non-monopolic (or such) state of AI would be open by itself.
- Barrin92 2y ago
  >When we say should be, this assumes some kind of intention, no? I don't think so. It's a company, not a person. Meta doesn't have intentions, just incentives. And if the incentives of a company are aligned with publishing open science and open software that's as good as it gets. I don't require for profit businesses to do good things because they love world peace or are altruistic. Meta making its money from its consumer facing products that nobody is forced to use and having the models out in the open is exactly how it should be.
skilled 2y ago
No amount of wishful thinking will make OpenAI change their course. Some of the Reddit comments say that Meta has contributed to Torch and done other things, etc. but so has OpenAI… https://github.com/openai https://github.com/openai Their engineers. Their time. Their knowledge. Open-Source. And who knows what future will bring. Maybe a model like GPT-4 will eventually be made public. To this day it is still the benchmark, which is forcing other teams to find solutions for them to be able to get to that point also.
- fantyoon 2y ago
  I suppose the difference is that Meta didn't just contribute to Torch, they created it. Meta seems to be quite good at open sourcing things in a way that provides real value to people. The Github org you linked to mainly seems to have repos for the OpenAI API, which doesn't quite rise to the same level of React and PyTorch.
qwertox 2y ago
I wish they would open source their TTS system, as they did with Whisper.
- sebzim4500 2y ago
  Only if it can't do voice cloning. Normally I find the AI ethics people insufferable but I do think that good voice cloning tech will do much more harm than good.
  - JoshTriplett 2y ago
    Might be a good idea to consider generalizing, and recognizing that if you find them to be correct on a particular topic, that should update your opinion on the potential correctness of other related positions. What positions do you think it's most likely that in a few years you might consider correct?
    - snapcaster 2y ago
      I think I correctly recognize who my enemies are (OpenAI and the small set of people who think they're the only capable stewards of AI). People allying themselves with the OpenAI/AI-safety folks are allying themselves with our enemies and regardless of the merit of their arguments in some philosophical sense I will oppose everything they do
      - JoshTriplett 2y ago
        > the small set of people who think they're the only capable stewards of AI You're mistaking one group of people for another. I'm talking about the set of people who think that nobody is a capable steward of AI, and thus that we should not develop its capabilities further until they're proven safe (and I mean "proven" very literally, not figuratively).
        snapcaster 2y ago
        These people will end up helping regulatory capture regardless (since they're too big of cowards to do what would be required to actually stop AI development)
mdrzn 2y ago
I still think it's crucial to recognize OpenAI's impact on the field, because without them ChatGPT wouldn't exist and it's unlikely any other organization would have developed such advanced LLMs so early (or even released them for free). It's easier to come second and release stuff for free to appear "generous".
- KaiserPro 2y ago
  > ChatGPT wouldn't exist I don't think thats actually the case. OpenAI were ahead, but they weren't engineering in isolation. The building blocks were out there, but openai managed to put them together first.
  - mdrzn 2y ago
    That's why I said I don't think anyone else would have started training and releasing free models UNLESS ChatGPT existed and had success, and only OpenAI managed to do so.
- beepbooptheory 2y ago
  Why is this crucial?
  - mdrzn 2y ago
    Because it's easy to forget that fact, and pretend that Meta is "better" than OpenAI when in reality they are late to the game and are trying to catch up to commoditize their product's complement.
jstummbillig 2y ago
Meta is not in the AI business. Meta is in the attention business (in this case, actually, no pun intended). If AI is not your product (as in: not how you need to make money), you can be be "generous". Making other peoples products less competitive by aggressively subsidising part of your business is not that cool of a move. If Meta starts being all open and generous about their core assets, we can start talking. But we will not start talking. Because that will not happen.
- jorlow 2y ago
  Sure, but OpenAI was not founded (or initially funded) to be an AI product company -- which is OP's point.
- worldsayshi 2y ago
  AI should have a huge impact on attention economics though. One cynical interpretation is that something that goes into their equation is that high availability of very competent open models should drive users to walled gardens since everywhere else is full of bots. I don't think that's the whole story though.
- raincole 2y ago
  Commoditize your complements.
  - jameshart 2y ago
    This seems to imply that generative content is a ‘complement’ to the advertising business, which is a pretty dispiriting realization. The implication is that Meta benefits from there being a lot of generative AI users out there producing content, because a rich marketplace of competing bots will generate engagement with Meta platforms that they can sell advertising into. They’re outsourcing click generation to content farms, and giving away the tools to do it to keep content farmers’ moats small.
- dimask 2y ago
  > If Meta starts being all open and generous about their core assets Didn't React come from them? PyTorch?
chucke1992 2y ago
Well for starters Meta has a lot of consumer facing stuff like social networks. And they are also able to produce hardware devices (being a much bigger company too). OpenAI had to invent the whole AI market but building customers is harder. The bigger question is why google is so incompetent with AI now. Granted they still have Google Search monopoly but I think search without going to Google will be the future. I do wonder if the most profitable AI stuff is coming from Microsoft due to their B2B skew.
- adzm 2y ago
  Google's AI for YouTube videos is pretty awesome. I'm surprised I haven't heard more about it.
  - asvitkine 2y ago
    Got more details about what you're referring to? For example, I know they have auto-subtitle stuff, but it's pretty ancient tech and I haven't seen it improve much since it was launched and it has still glaring shortcomings, like not being able to split out different people speaking or infer punctuation.
    - sharma-arjun 2y ago
      I'm not the OP, but recently, YouTube has started adding an automatic summary below videos. Before that, they also started adding automatic chapter titles, which, in my experience, are surprisingly good for navigating slide-based talks but are otherwise fairly hit-or-miss
Laaas 2y ago
https://archive.li/ZQnSP https://archive.li/ZQnSP (since Reddit blocks VPNs now)
- drpossum 2y ago
  By observation only if you're not logged in I guess
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- cellwebb 2y ago
  > since Reddit blocks VPNs now Holy shit when did that happen?
  - jsheard 2y ago
    Probably around when they started selling their data to AI companies. Blocking, or at least aggressively rate-limiting datacenter IP address ranges is a no-brainer at that point, they will want to make it as difficult as possible to scrape their data without paying them. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-16/reddit-is-said-to-sign-ai-content-licensing-deal-ahead-of-ipo https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-16/reddit-is...
  - DebtDeflation 2y ago
    Just started noticing it about a week ago. As someone else said, it only seems to happen when you're not logged in AND on a VPN. I can still login while on VPN and can still surf Reddit anonymously when not on a VPN.
- mkl 2y ago
  Works fine for me on PIA and Tor. Not logged in. Maybe they just blocked your server because someone used it for scraping?
- trustno2 2y ago
  archive.today is doing god's work, you should donate if you can afford it https://liberapay.com/archiveis https://liberapay.com/archiveis
underdeserver 2y ago
Meta is commoditizing their products' complement.[1] OpenAI can't - these models (or rather, the APIs) are their product. [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/
- ricdl 2y ago
  I fail to see how LLMs are a complement to Meta's products?
  - hpeter 2y ago
    They help accelerate enshittification but they also pump the stock.
  - underdeserver 2y ago
    There are many ways. Generative AI helps people create content (and that's not the only way, I'm sure). Meta's platforms use content to drive attention. For instance, an Instagram account that shows cool AI generated photos generates ad revenue for Meta.
    - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
      Can I opt out of consuming any ai generated "content", please? Thank you.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    I agree that LLMs are not a complement - Facebook is not an organisation that desparately needs a bunch of LLM-generated content. They have masses of content generated for free by users and journalists and influencers and so on - if anything, a bunch of LLM spam is a threat to that. However, Open-weights LLMs are a much smaller threat to Facebook than they are to Google (where it could replace a lot of search usage) or Open AI (whose business is selling LLM access) Perhaps for Facebook the benefits of the open weights approach - where you give away the model and get back a load of somewhat improved models, a faster way of running it, and a load of experienced potential hires - pays off because it doesn't threaten their core business.
rvba 2y ago
OpenAI exists on a lot of computers allready - since their ideas are part of Microsoft Copilot. People here are usually programmers, who can and are allowed to do more than average users. If we treat "open" as "open to the masses" (as strange as it sounds) then putting it as a part of MS office brought it to many people.
NalNezumi 2y ago
I think one should attribute a good amount of credit of this to Yann LeCun (head of meta's research). From early stage he have been vocal about keeping things open-source, and voiced that to Mark before even joining. (and credit to Mark for keeping that). It probably also stems from his experience working at Bell Labs, and how his pioneering work very much required a lot of help from things available openly, as is still the case in academia. The man have been repeating the advantage of open-source being the better option, and been very vocal about his opposition to "regulate AI (read: let a handful of US government aligned closed-source companies have complete monopoly on AI under the guise of ethics)". On this point he (and meta) stands in a pretty stark contrast to a lot of big-tech AI mainstream voices. Me myself recently moved some research tech stack to meta stuff, and unlike platform that basically stops being supported as soon as the main contributor finishes his PhD, it have been great to work on it (and they're usually open to feedback and fixes/PR).
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  > regulate AI (read: let a handful of US government aligned closed-source companies have complete monopoly on AI under the guise of ethics) Regulatory capture would certainly be a bad outcome. Unfortunately, the collateral damage has been to also suppress regulation aimed at making AI safer, advocated by people who are not interested in AI company profits, but rather in arguing that "move fast and break things" is not a safe strategy for building AGI. It's been remarkably effective for the original "move fast and break things" company to attempt to sweep all safety under the rug by claiming that it's all a conspiracy by Big AI to do regulatory capture, and in the process, leave themselves entirely unchecked by anyone.
  - fallingknife 2y ago
    When Sam Altman is calling for AI regulation, yes it is a conspiracy by big AI to do regulatory capture. What is this regulation aimed at making AI safer that you refer to anyway? Because I certainly haven't heard of it. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any agreement on whether or how AI, at a state remotely similar to the level it is at today, is dangerous or how to mitigate that danger. How can you even attempt to regulate in good faith without that?
decide1000 2y ago
Why is Reddit blocking my vpn?
- CaptainFever 2y ago
  Log in or try changing proxies
decide1000 2y ago
Why does Reddit block my VPN?
gmerc 2y ago
Meta weaponizes open source to ensure no technological moats develop which increases the value of their moats: - Data (Meta is one of two competitice companies when it comes to data volume) - Compute (Meta is #1 here) - Platform / eyeballs. (Meta is #1 here, Bytedance will be degraded) It degrades talent moat and destroys proprietary technology moats. Open source does PMF, R&D and de-risking for them while destroying any proprietary competitor - especially ones that don’t have the funding to fight the price dumping effect. And make no mistake, in most industries this would be illegal dumping - if a furniture chain started giving away superior lumbering equipments to anyone cross financed with external money to deny sales to their competitors it would be handled with swiftly and decisively. Sundar right now will be getting questions from their investors of why they spend 200M on Gemini if anyone with enough data and compute can achieve the same thing. Remember “We have no moat and neither has OpenAI?”. It took less than a year for that to play out go brutal effect. Llama3 450B will have google up at night. It also allows meta to effectively not hire armies or product and engineering talent because they get that value for free. Llama.cpp alone is worth hundreds of millions in combined R&D at this point, catching up the llama architecture to its competitors. Finally the result of AI is a commoditization of content creation - more content in an attention saturated ecosystem increases the competition for eyeballs - aka what companies have to pay to beat their competition on the marketplaces of attention. And companies will be able to spend money on that because they can fire their creators (that’s what the Sora and Vasa class of models ultimately will do within a year) and save on compute - only to spend it on demand generation. Analog to how Amazon managed to run by the spirit of open source to monetize open source software without giving back, Meta has shaped the passion and desire of people to build and share into a powerful weapon it wields with deadly precision against its competition, all while being able for benefit from the collateral effects on every level. Mark is nothing but predictable here - he’s an aggressive, always at war General and “commoditize your complements” and “accelerate technology adoption to improve the business environment” are some of his key gambits (see emails on oculus adoption) and the road is littered with the burnt out husks of previous plays - such as the entire news business he commoditized for attention and reengagement. Yes there is side effects that are good - the freeing of the technology from the yoke of Google and Altman Corp, but that does mean there’s any charitable intent here. Mark does not give a damn about the common good. He cares about winning. Always has.
mensetmanusman 2y ago
Meta has an incentive to release free technology that could threaten their business competitors who stand to gain with closed AI. OpenAI isn't rich yet, so they have to monetize. Their behavior is obvious when accounting for their positions.
puttycat 2y ago
Just remember that FB will weaponize everything once it makes sense to them financially.
rapatel0 2y ago
As a bit of a side note, Meta's AI democratization will help with AR/VR. There is a dearth of interesting content to use on them. Open-sourcing will certainly create a fleet of content creators for the platform. I expect the are creating a Sora competitor in the background as well.
barfbagginus 2y ago
Meta is not just commoditizing their complement AI can be a superior substitute for the low quality interactions on Facebook - one that never exploits your attention. And AI can be used to de-enshittify Facebook's contents. AI as a direct substitute AI can provide social support and feedback more constructively than people you meet in Facebook communities, and is not instrumented with anxiety inducing bloat. I spend less time arguing in non productive debates on Facebook now, and more time talking with AI which helps me develop ideas and solve conflicts. AI is more than just a stochastic parrot in this regard - it's increasingly a sound advocate. And it is hallucinating far less these days with the newest paid models. When I want to talk to a random asshole who gives me grief, I talk to someone on Facebook. If I want to talk about a topic and actually get somewhere beneficial to me, I'll talk to AI. AI as De-Enshittware There is another way that meta is not necessarily acting in their own best interests here. We can likely use llms to filter out the attention abusing bull crap from Facebook, adaptively overcoming countermeasures Facebook puts up. The fact that LLMs can potentially de-enshittify Facebook's attention modification mechanisms makes it into an "indirect substitute" or "displacement good" for the enshittware version of Facebook. Conclusion: Commoditizing AI might turn into a massive footgun for Meta While open AI clearly hurts their immediate competition, it can also directly substitute the Facebook product. And it may indirectly make the Facebook less awful for users - and therefore less profitable for Meta.
CuriouslyC 2y ago
I think people should be calling out Yann's role in this more. Mark might or might not have come up with this strategy on his own, but Yann was 100% pushing for Open Models and I'd like to think he has enough weight with Mark to make it happen.
- DebtDeflation 2y ago
  Meanwhile, Hinton went off the page in the opposite direction yesterday comparing open sourcing AI models to open sourcing nuclear weapons. https://twitter.com/ygrowthco/status/1782493076373885336?t=LQtzFlTZQuFZO6Ij3t_Q3Q&s=19 https://twitter.com/ygrowthco/status/1782493076373885336?t=L...
  - hnfong 2y ago
    "Luckily" the USA is capitalist enough that, if the top S&P500 companies are all releasing open (weight) models to the public, regulation isn't going to happen any time soon.
  - nojvek 2y ago
    Geoffrey Hinton, AI doomer Eliezer Yudkowsky and others like Gary Marcus preaching AI == nuclear weapons seem like they don't really understand how LLMs work under the hood. Or they flip flop between "look at how stupid AI is" and "OMG! AI gonna kill us all, they are too smart". 100% Generative AI for text, video, audio, images have legitimate concerns for deep-fakes, scams, hallucination. However extending it to say that it will destroy humanity in the next few years is pretty far fetched. AGI in the hands of one or two powerful corporations / nation states is the biggest risk we face. Competition and power balance is extremely important. Yan LeCun is right, we need Good AIs to fight bad AIs. Good robots to fight bad robots. Good and Bad being relative to a group's beliefs. We cannot trust nation states, or corporations, or billionaires to do the right thing. The right thing is relative. Humans are a distributed system optimizing for their own survival and good feelings. When everyone has it, no one has it.
    - phi0 2y ago
resolutebat 2y ago
My kids are hooked on "Meta AI" that's now built into Whatsapp. I have very mixed feelings about this and have tried my best to ensure they understand the limitations, but I also don't see an obvious way to disable it without getting rid of Whatsapp entirely, and thanks to the network effect that's not really an option either.
- snapcaster 2y ago
  Why are you wanting to disable it?
  - albert_e 2y ago
    For one -- All the limitations and pitfalls of Generative AI ... with not enough awareness and maturity on part of users to sidestep or disregard them. A very tame but representative example -- GenAI can reinforce stereotypes and biases: MetaAI incapable of generating an image of Indian without a Turban. https://twitter.com/josephradhik/status/1781587906009731211 https://twitter.com/josephradhik/status/1781587906009731211
    - snapcaster 2y ago
      So you're concerned about the cultural influences? Or the impact on development/learning? Both? Curious about this process, everyone planning on having kids is going to have to figure out the "AI questions". How are you planning on handling LLMs/AI usage by your kids going forward? edit: realized after the post you're not OP haha
- isoprophlex 2y ago
  Huh, I don't have that at all (I'm Dutch). Is this a non-EU thing they built in for selected markets?
  - Maxious 2y ago
    >We’re rolling out Meta AI in English in more than a dozen countries outside of the US. Now, people will have access to Meta AI in Australia, Canada, Ghana, Jamaica, Malawi, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe — and we’re just getting started. https://about.fb.com/news/2024/04/meta-ai-assistant-built-with-llama-3/ https://about.fb.com/news/2024/04/meta-ai-assistant-built-wi...
rvz 2y ago
No surprises here as predicted in [0] "Anyone building $0 free AI models that can be used on-device, like Stability, Meta, Apple, etc have already 'won' the AI race to zero." The surprise here was that Google joined in the $0 free LLM race. Even when this is all over, both Google and Meta can do more than just LLMs; and people really have to think beyond this. But at this point, it is clear that OpenAI's head start on GPTs is rapidly getting eroded as everyone else is catching up. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37606400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37606400
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
IOT_Apprentice 2y ago
[flagged]
- lolinder 2y ago
  > I’m surprised no one is outraged that Israel’s Military AI, named lavender is in active use identifying, targeting and murdering Palestinians In Real time. 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39918245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39918245 - 20 days ago (1418 points, 1433 comments) It's not that no one is outraged, it's that we like to keep the outrage limited to the threads that are about the outrage. I'd rather not see HN devolve into a place where every discussion inevitably pivots to the horrific world event du jour.
  - IOT_Apprentice 2y ago
    The discussion was about the safety of AI and pausing AGI/AI out of fear of it going rogue or killing people. Lavender is actually doing that as a state sponsored military AI. The technology is now out in the world and all AI/LLMS can be used in the general world community. I would assume Palintir has offerings to do this Weapons-based AI killing people. Are there humans in the loop?
- archerx 2y ago
  We are not allowed to critique Israel or else we will be called anti-semetic and get cancelled. A proverbial third rail if you will.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39918245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39918245 - 20 days ago (1418 points, 1433 comments)
  - Spivak 2y ago
    I must run in very different circles because in my social sphere even my Jewish friends are uncomfortable saying anything supporting Israel. Where is this rabidly pro-Israel mob?
danso 2y ago
tangent: it might not be worth the tens of billions that have been dumped into the "Metaverse", but I've always thought FB rebranding as "Meta" was a savvy strategic decision. Unlike Alphabet — which everyone still calls "Google" b/c Google search is still the most useful and ubiquitous part of the Alphabet conglomerate — plenty of people use things like Whatsapp and IG without ever having to touch FB (beyond its login infrastructure) and many of these users despise FB and its perceived "boomer" audience and content. "Meta AI" at least sounds much more congruent and palatable than "Facebook AI", even if the people and processes remain the same.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
benreesman 2y ago
FAIR really does stand out from the field on available weights, safety considerations that seem at least plausibly connected to abuse potential, and a long-term, serious academic research agenda. And I’ll remind you that their ocean of multi-modal, longitudinal over decades training set is not in any “uncertain” state as concerns copyright. I’m pretty fricken annoyed with e.g. Boz given the fact that people at least sort of believe Carmack and Palmer now, which means they at least sort of believe me now. But that increases, not decreases my obligation to be fair, and Meta AI is on fire.
aaroninsf 2y ago
False. Everything there are doing is in service of advancing the singularly corrupt surveillance and "consumer" control service that is their bread and butter. Tactical contributions are entirely in the service of strategic goals, in the service of a leadership and culture who have proven to unerringly do the worst thing possible so long as it increases their own wealth and power. The list of whistleblowers and insider accounts of reprehensible and inexcusable abuses is endless and ever-growing. Wtf would ever engage with them or their products? Their models are the moral equivalent of "good data" from experiments run in gulags and concentraiton camps.
jgalt212 2y ago
favorite comment from reddit > Anything that pisses Sam "regulation for thee not for me" Altman off makes me extremely happy
arisAlexis 2y ago
No, as Hinton says in his own words "it's crazy to open source something so powerful". OpenAI is being responsible, LeCun still thinks AI is not smarter than a cat (literally he said that month ago). And he has taken Zuck for a ride. Ilya and Hinton can be considered the inventors of this whole LLM novelty and they both agree they should not be open sourced. Says a lot.
peacemankelvin 2y ago
hello mate so sorry but I came across your page and I thought I should pass this vital info,Well I suggest you should message Rothstein_code on instagram or Facebook @Rothstein_Code he’s a staff at meta ,and Their ic3 who handles account recoveries,this is an opportunity to reach one of their staff, I lost my account and the support teams couldn't do anything about it but this guy was able to help me out,all thanks to him. Hey! The support team doesn't work no more After the pandemic so You can still get access to your account am sure, quickly send a message to @Rothstein_code on Facebook/Instagram page he will sort this out for you,he works with meta.

[dead]

When we say should be, this assumes some kind of intention, no? Meta making things open is a means, not an end. The end is to weaken competition to position itself economically. The end is not to make things "open" in and of itself which is what the charter of OpenAI is (was?).

robertlagrant 2y ago
It's better if people are incentivised to do something than that they just decide to, or (as with OpenAI) decide to against incentive.
andersa 2y ago
It never was. During their brief fight with Elon Musk they revealed old emails clearly stating that releasing things openly was only a ruse to attract talent at first and they never intended to do that with good AI models.
- hyperhopper 2y ago
  Do you have a source on this?
  - ronsor 2y ago
    The horse is condemned by its own mouth: https://openai.com/blog/openai-elon-musk https://openai.com/blog/openai-elon-musk > As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it's totally OK to not share the science (even though sharing everything is definitely the right strategy in the short and possibly medium term for recruitment purposes).
    - the_other 2y ago
      It's not "science" if it's not shared. It's just "business intelligence".
      - mensetmanusman 2y ago
        Science doesn't care about sharing. See nukes
        the_other 2y ago
        Nukes are “business intelligence” (or national secrets if you will) plus engineering. The science (atoms, forces, power, energy) was already shared.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > The horse is condemned by its own mouth Words like this suggest a failure of imagination. Given it's their own mouth and they're writing in their own defence, what might be a more generous interpretation?
      - hhjinks 2y ago
        The only more generous interpretation I can see is that OpenAI actually did intend to be open, but only between December 11th 2015 to January 2nd 2016, at which point they had changed their mind.
        ben_w 2y ago
        The paragraph immediately preceding the quotation is: "The article is concerned with a hard takeoff scenario: if a hard takeoff occurs, and a safe AI is harder to build than an unsafe one, then by opensorucing everything, we make it easy for someone unscrupulous with access to overwhelming amount of hardware to build an unsafe AI, which will experience a hard takeoff." The article in question appears to be: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/12/17/should-ai-be-open/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/12/17/should-ai-be-open/ Which opens with: """H.G. Wells’ 1914 sci-fi book The World Set Free did a pretty good job predicting nuclear weapons: They did not see it until the atomic bombs burst in their fumbling hands…before the last war began it was a matter of common knowledge that a man could carry about in a handbag an amount of latent energy sufficient to wreck half a city""" and, I hope I'm summarising usefully rather than cherry-picking because it's quite long, also says: """Once again: The decision to make AI findings open source is a tradeoff between risks and benefits. The risk is that in a world with hard takeoffs and difficult control problems, you get superhuman AIs that hurl everybody off cliffs. The benefit is that in a world with slow takeoffs and no control problems, nobody will be able to use their sole possession of the only existing AI to garner too much power. But the benefits just aren’t clear enough to justify that level of risk. I’m still not even sure exactly how the OpenAI founders visualize the future they’re trying to prevent. Are AIs fast and dangerous? Are they slow and easily-controlled? Does just one company have them? Several companies? All rich people? Are they a moderate advantage? A huge advantage? None of those possibilities seem dire enough to justify OpenAI’s tradeoff against safety.""" and """Elon Musk famously said that AIs are “potentially more dangerous than nukes”. He’s right – so AI probably shouldn’t be open source any more than nukes should."" This is what OpenAI and Musk were discussing in the context of responding to "I've seen you […] doing a lot of interviews recently extolling the virtues of open sourcing AI, but I presume you realise that this is not some sort of panacea that will somehow magically solve the safety problem?"
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
karmakaze 2y ago
Meta wants to profit from the use of AI not the making/selling of it. Commoditize Your Complement and all that. Having this understanding of why is enough to be comfortable with alignment. The Meta offerings should be under the umbrella name "FreeAI" analogous to Free Software (e.g. FSF) vs the more commercial leaning Open-Source. Heck everyone should contribute to it and make it a movement so "Free" is both an adjective and a verb.
nolok 2y ago
I agree, except in the case of OpenAI it should be an end, and yet they fail at it spectacularly, and since Altman/Microsoft finished their takeover there is basically no hope of it ever coming back.
- ben_w 2y ago
  The OpenAI charter specifically says "safe". We're all arguing over what that even means for an AI. If you're at all risk adverse, that argument by itself should be a hint that releasing the weights of a model. For example, the last few years have seen a lot of angry comments about how "the algorithm" (for both social media feeds and Google search results) is politically biased. IIRC we don't know the full set of training data (data includes RLHF responses before anyone points me to the Wikipedia page I already read that lists some data sources) how can we be confident that any model from Facebook has not been specifically trained to drive a specific political agenda?
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    The safety argument has proven complete BS now that they commercialize the unsafe AI…
    - anon373839 2y ago
      I can’t believe anyone buys it anymore. It feels like it was just yesterday when they were begging for a pause on training “dangerous” models (where danger was defined as “anything better than our flagship product”).
      - ben_w 2y ago
        The request has become law and there aren't any models clearly better than their flagship.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      "The" safety argument? You think there's only one? "The unsafe AI"? Which one would this be? Would it be the one which so many people on this very website complain has been "lobotomised"? (No matter how much I object to that word in this context, that's what people call it).
hzay 2y ago
The end neither justifies nor undermines the means.
dimask 2y ago
Making things open is a means, not an end, _in general_. The end is what we do with these things. What you call "competition" I would call "monopoly". A healthy, non-monopolic (or such) state of AI would be open by itself.
Barrin92 2y ago
>When we say should be, this assumes some kind of intention, no? I don't think so. It's a company, not a person. Meta doesn't have intentions, just incentives. And if the incentives of a company are aligned with publishing open science and open software that's as good as it gets. I don't require for profit businesses to do good things because they love world peace or are altruistic. Meta making its money from its consumer facing products that nobody is forced to use and having the models out in the open is exactly how it should be.

skilled 2y ago

No amount of wishful thinking will make OpenAI change their course. Some of the Reddit comments say that Meta has contributed to Torch and done other things, etc. but so has OpenAI… https://github.com/openai https://github.com/openai Their engineers. Their time. Their knowledge. Open-Source. And who knows what future will bring. Maybe a model like GPT-4 will eventually be made public. To this day it is still the benchmark, which is forcing other teams to find solutions for them to be able to get to that point also.

fantyoon 2y ago
I suppose the difference is that Meta didn't just contribute to Torch, they created it. Meta seems to be quite good at open sourcing things in a way that provides real value to people. The Github org you linked to mainly seems to have repos for the OpenAI API, which doesn't quite rise to the same level of React and PyTorch.

qwertox 2y ago

I wish they would open source their TTS system, as they did with Whisper.

sebzim4500 2y ago
Only if it can't do voice cloning. Normally I find the AI ethics people insufferable but I do think that good voice cloning tech will do much more harm than good.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  Might be a good idea to consider generalizing, and recognizing that if you find them to be correct on a particular topic, that should update your opinion on the potential correctness of other related positions. What positions do you think it's most likely that in a few years you might consider correct?
  - snapcaster 2y ago
    I think I correctly recognize who my enemies are (OpenAI and the small set of people who think they're the only capable stewards of AI). People allying themselves with the OpenAI/AI-safety folks are allying themselves with our enemies and regardless of the merit of their arguments in some philosophical sense I will oppose everything they do
    - JoshTriplett 2y ago
      > the small set of people who think they're the only capable stewards of AI You're mistaking one group of people for another. I'm talking about the set of people who think that nobody is a capable steward of AI, and thus that we should not develop its capabilities further until they're proven safe (and I mean "proven" very literally, not figuratively).
      - snapcaster 2y ago
        These people will end up helping regulatory capture regardless (since they're too big of cowards to do what would be required to actually stop AI development)

mdrzn 2y ago

I still think it's crucial to recognize OpenAI's impact on the field, because without them ChatGPT wouldn't exist and it's unlikely any other organization would have developed such advanced LLMs so early (or even released them for free). It's easier to come second and release stuff for free to appear "generous".

KaiserPro 2y ago
> ChatGPT wouldn't exist I don't think thats actually the case. OpenAI were ahead, but they weren't engineering in isolation. The building blocks were out there, but openai managed to put them together first.
- mdrzn 2y ago
  That's why I said I don't think anyone else would have started training and releasing free models UNLESS ChatGPT existed and had success, and only OpenAI managed to do so.
beepbooptheory 2y ago
Why is this crucial?
- mdrzn 2y ago
  Because it's easy to forget that fact, and pretend that Meta is "better" than OpenAI when in reality they are late to the game and are trying to catch up to commoditize their product's complement.

jstummbillig 2y ago

Meta is not in the AI business. Meta is in the attention business (in this case, actually, no pun intended). If AI is not your product (as in: not how you need to make money), you can be be "generous". Making other peoples products less competitive by aggressively subsidising part of your business is not that cool of a move. If Meta starts being all open and generous about their core assets, we can start talking. But we will not start talking. Because that will not happen.

jorlow 2y ago
Sure, but OpenAI was not founded (or initially funded) to be an AI product company -- which is OP's point.
worldsayshi 2y ago
AI should have a huge impact on attention economics though. One cynical interpretation is that something that goes into their equation is that high availability of very competent open models should drive users to walled gardens since everywhere else is full of bots. I don't think that's the whole story though.
raincole 2y ago
Commoditize your complements.
- jameshart 2y ago
  This seems to imply that generative content is a ‘complement’ to the advertising business, which is a pretty dispiriting realization. The implication is that Meta benefits from there being a lot of generative AI users out there producing content, because a rich marketplace of competing bots will generate engagement with Meta platforms that they can sell advertising into. They’re outsourcing click generation to content farms, and giving away the tools to do it to keep content farmers’ moats small.
dimask 2y ago
> If Meta starts being all open and generous about their core assets Didn't React come from them? PyTorch?

chucke1992 2y ago

Well for starters Meta has a lot of consumer facing stuff like social networks. And they are also able to produce hardware devices (being a much bigger company too). OpenAI had to invent the whole AI market but building customers is harder. The bigger question is why google is so incompetent with AI now. Granted they still have Google Search monopoly but I think search without going to Google will be the future. I do wonder if the most profitable AI stuff is coming from Microsoft due to their B2B skew.

adzm 2y ago
Google's AI for YouTube videos is pretty awesome. I'm surprised I haven't heard more about it.
- asvitkine 2y ago
  Got more details about what you're referring to? For example, I know they have auto-subtitle stuff, but it's pretty ancient tech and I haven't seen it improve much since it was launched and it has still glaring shortcomings, like not being able to split out different people speaking or infer punctuation.
  - sharma-arjun 2y ago
    I'm not the OP, but recently, YouTube has started adding an automatic summary below videos. Before that, they also started adding automatic chapter titles, which, in my experience, are surprisingly good for navigating slide-based talks but are otherwise fairly hit-or-miss

Laaas 2y ago

https://archive.li/ZQnSP https://archive.li/ZQnSP (since Reddit blocks VPNs now)

drpossum 2y ago
By observation only if you're not logged in I guess
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
cellwebb 2y ago
> since Reddit blocks VPNs now Holy shit when did that happen?
- jsheard 2y ago
  Probably around when they started selling their data to AI companies. Blocking, or at least aggressively rate-limiting datacenter IP address ranges is a no-brainer at that point, they will want to make it as difficult as possible to scrape their data without paying them. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-16/reddit-is-said-to-sign-ai-content-licensing-deal-ahead-of-ipo https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-16/reddit-is...
- DebtDeflation 2y ago
  Just started noticing it about a week ago. As someone else said, it only seems to happen when you're not logged in AND on a VPN. I can still login while on VPN and can still surf Reddit anonymously when not on a VPN.
mkl 2y ago
Works fine for me on PIA and Tor. Not logged in. Maybe they just blocked your server because someone used it for scraping?
trustno2 2y ago
archive.today is doing god's work, you should donate if you can afford it https://liberapay.com/archiveis https://liberapay.com/archiveis

underdeserver 2y ago

Meta is commoditizing their products' complement.[1] OpenAI can't - these models (or rather, the APIs) are their product. [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

ricdl 2y ago
I fail to see how LLMs are a complement to Meta's products?
- hpeter 2y ago
  They help accelerate enshittification but they also pump the stock.
- underdeserver 2y ago
  There are many ways. Generative AI helps people create content (and that's not the only way, I'm sure). Meta's platforms use content to drive attention. For instance, an Instagram account that shows cool AI generated photos generates ad revenue for Meta.
  - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 2y ago
    Can I opt out of consuming any ai generated "content", please? Thank you.
- michaelt 2y ago
  I agree that LLMs are not a complement - Facebook is not an organisation that desparately needs a bunch of LLM-generated content. They have masses of content generated for free by users and journalists and influencers and so on - if anything, a bunch of LLM spam is a threat to that. However, Open-weights LLMs are a much smaller threat to Facebook than they are to Google (where it could replace a lot of search usage) or Open AI (whose business is selling LLM access) Perhaps for Facebook the benefits of the open weights approach - where you give away the model and get back a load of somewhat improved models, a faster way of running it, and a load of experienced potential hires - pays off because it doesn't threaten their core business.

rvba 2y ago

OpenAI exists on a lot of computers allready - since their ideas are part of Microsoft Copilot. People here are usually programmers, who can and are allowed to do more than average users. If we treat "open" as "open to the masses" (as strange as it sounds) then putting it as a part of MS office brought it to many people.

NalNezumi 2y ago

I think one should attribute a good amount of credit of this to Yann LeCun (head of meta's research). From early stage he have been vocal about keeping things open-source, and voiced that to Mark before even joining. (and credit to Mark for keeping that). It probably also stems from his experience working at Bell Labs, and how his pioneering work very much required a lot of help from things available openly, as is still the case in academia. The man have been repeating the advantage of open-source being the better option, and been very vocal about his opposition to "regulate AI (read: let a handful of US government aligned closed-source companies have complete monopoly on AI under the guise of ethics)". On this point he (and meta) stands in a pretty stark contrast to a lot of big-tech AI mainstream voices. Me myself recently moved some research tech stack to meta stuff, and unlike platform that basically stops being supported as soon as the main contributor finishes his PhD, it have been great to work on it (and they're usually open to feedback and fixes/PR).

JoshTriplett 2y ago
> regulate AI (read: let a handful of US government aligned closed-source companies have complete monopoly on AI under the guise of ethics) Regulatory capture would certainly be a bad outcome. Unfortunately, the collateral damage has been to also suppress regulation aimed at making AI safer, advocated by people who are not interested in AI company profits, but rather in arguing that "move fast and break things" is not a safe strategy for building AGI. It's been remarkably effective for the original "move fast and break things" company to attempt to sweep all safety under the rug by claiming that it's all a conspiracy by Big AI to do regulatory capture, and in the process, leave themselves entirely unchecked by anyone.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  When Sam Altman is calling for AI regulation, yes it is a conspiracy by big AI to do regulatory capture. What is this regulation aimed at making AI safer that you refer to anyway? Because I certainly haven't heard of it. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any agreement on whether or how AI, at a state remotely similar to the level it is at today, is dangerous or how to mitigate that danger. How can you even attempt to regulate in good faith without that?

decide1000 2y ago

Why is Reddit blocking my vpn?

CaptainFever 2y ago
Log in or try changing proxies

decide1000 2y ago

Why does Reddit block my VPN?

gmerc 2y ago

Meta weaponizes open source to ensure no technological moats develop which increases the value of their moats: - Data (Meta is one of two competitice companies when it comes to data volume) - Compute (Meta is #1 here) - Platform / eyeballs. (Meta is #1 here, Bytedance will be degraded) It degrades talent moat and destroys proprietary technology moats. Open source does PMF, R&D and de-risking for them while destroying any proprietary competitor - especially ones that don’t have the funding to fight the price dumping effect. And make no mistake, in most industries this would be illegal dumping - if a furniture chain started giving away superior lumbering equipments to anyone cross financed with external money to deny sales to their competitors it would be handled with swiftly and decisively. Sundar right now will be getting questions from their investors of why they spend 200M on Gemini if anyone with enough data and compute can achieve the same thing. Remember “We have no moat and neither has OpenAI?”. It took less than a year for that to play out go brutal effect. Llama3 450B will have google up at night. It also allows meta to effectively not hire armies or product and engineering talent because they get that value for free. Llama.cpp alone is worth hundreds of millions in combined R&D at this point, catching up the llama architecture to its competitors. Finally the result of AI is a commoditization of content creation - more content in an attention saturated ecosystem increases the competition for eyeballs - aka what companies have to pay to beat their competition on the marketplaces of attention. And companies will be able to spend money on that because they can fire their creators (that’s what the Sora and Vasa class of models ultimately will do within a year) and save on compute - only to spend it on demand generation. Analog to how Amazon managed to run by the spirit of open source to monetize open source software without giving back, Meta has shaped the passion and desire of people to build and share into a powerful weapon it wields with deadly precision against its competition, all while being able for benefit from the collateral effects on every level. Mark is nothing but predictable here - he’s an aggressive, always at war General and “commoditize your complements” and “accelerate technology adoption to improve the business environment” are some of his key gambits (see emails on oculus adoption) and the road is littered with the burnt out husks of previous plays - such as the entire news business he commoditized for attention and reengagement. Yes there is side effects that are good - the freeing of the technology from the yoke of Google and Altman Corp, but that does mean there’s any charitable intent here. Mark does not give a damn about the common good. He cares about winning. Always has.

mensetmanusman 2y ago

Meta has an incentive to release free technology that could threaten their business competitors who stand to gain with closed AI. OpenAI isn't rich yet, so they have to monetize. Their behavior is obvious when accounting for their positions.

puttycat 2y ago

Just remember that FB will weaponize everything once it makes sense to them financially.

rapatel0 2y ago

As a bit of a side note, Meta's AI democratization will help with AR/VR. There is a dearth of interesting content to use on them. Open-sourcing will certainly create a fleet of content creators for the platform. I expect the are creating a Sora competitor in the background as well.

barfbagginus 2y ago

Meta is not just commoditizing their complement AI can be a superior substitute for the low quality interactions on Facebook - one that never exploits your attention. And AI can be used to de-enshittify Facebook's contents. AI as a direct substitute AI can provide social support and feedback more constructively than people you meet in Facebook communities, and is not instrumented with anxiety inducing bloat. I spend less time arguing in non productive debates on Facebook now, and more time talking with AI which helps me develop ideas and solve conflicts. AI is more than just a stochastic parrot in this regard - it's increasingly a sound advocate. And it is hallucinating far less these days with the newest paid models. When I want to talk to a random asshole who gives me grief, I talk to someone on Facebook. If I want to talk about a topic and actually get somewhere beneficial to me, I'll talk to AI. AI as De-Enshittware There is another way that meta is not necessarily acting in their own best interests here. We can likely use llms to filter out the attention abusing bull crap from Facebook, adaptively overcoming countermeasures Facebook puts up. The fact that LLMs can potentially de-enshittify Facebook's attention modification mechanisms makes it into an "indirect substitute" or "displacement good" for the enshittware version of Facebook. Conclusion: Commoditizing AI might turn into a massive footgun for Meta While open AI clearly hurts their immediate competition, it can also directly substitute the Facebook product. And it may indirectly make the Facebook less awful for users - and therefore less profitable for Meta.

CuriouslyC 2y ago

I think people should be calling out Yann's role in this more. Mark might or might not have come up with this strategy on his own, but Yann was 100% pushing for Open Models and I'd like to think he has enough weight with Mark to make it happen.

DebtDeflation 2y ago
Meanwhile, Hinton went off the page in the opposite direction yesterday comparing open sourcing AI models to open sourcing nuclear weapons. https://twitter.com/ygrowthco/status/1782493076373885336?t=LQtzFlTZQuFZO6Ij3t_Q3Q&s=19 https://twitter.com/ygrowthco/status/1782493076373885336?t=L...
- hnfong 2y ago
  "Luckily" the USA is capitalist enough that, if the top S&P500 companies are all releasing open (weight) models to the public, regulation isn't going to happen any time soon.
- nojvek 2y ago
  Geoffrey Hinton, AI doomer Eliezer Yudkowsky and others like Gary Marcus preaching AI == nuclear weapons seem like they don't really understand how LLMs work under the hood. Or they flip flop between "look at how stupid AI is" and "OMG! AI gonna kill us all, they are too smart". 100% Generative AI for text, video, audio, images have legitimate concerns for deep-fakes, scams, hallucination. However extending it to say that it will destroy humanity in the next few years is pretty far fetched. AGI in the hands of one or two powerful corporations / nation states is the biggest risk we face. Competition and power balance is extremely important. Yan LeCun is right, we need Good AIs to fight bad AIs. Good robots to fight bad robots. Good and Bad being relative to a group's beliefs. We cannot trust nation states, or corporations, or billionaires to do the right thing. The right thing is relative. Humans are a distributed system optimizing for their own survival and good feelings. When everyone has it, no one has it.
  - phi0 2y ago

resolutebat 2y ago

My kids are hooked on "Meta AI" that's now built into Whatsapp. I have very mixed feelings about this and have tried my best to ensure they understand the limitations, but I also don't see an obvious way to disable it without getting rid of Whatsapp entirely, and thanks to the network effect that's not really an option either.

snapcaster 2y ago
Why are you wanting to disable it?
- albert_e 2y ago
  For one -- All the limitations and pitfalls of Generative AI ... with not enough awareness and maturity on part of users to sidestep or disregard them. A very tame but representative example -- GenAI can reinforce stereotypes and biases: MetaAI incapable of generating an image of Indian without a Turban. https://twitter.com/josephradhik/status/1781587906009731211 https://twitter.com/josephradhik/status/1781587906009731211
  - snapcaster 2y ago
    So you're concerned about the cultural influences? Or the impact on development/learning? Both? Curious about this process, everyone planning on having kids is going to have to figure out the "AI questions". How are you planning on handling LLMs/AI usage by your kids going forward? edit: realized after the post you're not OP haha
isoprophlex 2y ago
Huh, I don't have that at all (I'm Dutch). Is this a non-EU thing they built in for selected markets?
- Maxious 2y ago
  >We’re rolling out Meta AI in English in more than a dozen countries outside of the US. Now, people will have access to Meta AI in Australia, Canada, Ghana, Jamaica, Malawi, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Singapore, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe — and we’re just getting started. https://about.fb.com/news/2024/04/meta-ai-assistant-built-with-llama-3/ https://about.fb.com/news/2024/04/meta-ai-assistant-built-wi...

rvz 2y ago

No surprises here as predicted in [0] "Anyone building $0 free AI models that can be used on-device, like Stability, Meta, Apple, etc have already 'won' the AI race to zero." The surprise here was that Google joined in the $0 free LLM race. Even when this is all over, both Google and Meta can do more than just LLMs; and people really have to think beyond this. But at this point, it is clear that OpenAI's head start on GPTs is rapidly getting eroded as everyone else is catching up. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37606400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37606400

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

IOT_Apprentice 2y ago

[flagged]

lolinder 2y ago
> I’m surprised no one is outraged that Israel’s Military AI, named lavender is in active use identifying, targeting and murdering Palestinians In Real time. 'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39918245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39918245 - 20 days ago (1418 points, 1433 comments) It's not that no one is outraged, it's that we like to keep the outrage limited to the threads that are about the outrage. I'd rather not see HN devolve into a place where every discussion inevitably pivots to the horrific world event du jour.
- IOT_Apprentice 2y ago
  The discussion was about the safety of AI and pausing AGI/AI out of fear of it going rogue or killing people. Lavender is actually doing that as a state sponsored military AI. The technology is now out in the world and all AI/LLMS can be used in the general world community. I would assume Palintir has offerings to do this Weapons-based AI killing people. Are there humans in the loop?
archerx 2y ago
We are not allowed to critique Israel or else we will be called anti-semetic and get cancelled. A proverbial third rail if you will.
- lolinder 2y ago
  'Lavender': The AI machine directing Israel's bombing in Gaza - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39918245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39918245 - 20 days ago (1418 points, 1433 comments)
- Spivak 2y ago
  I must run in very different circles because in my social sphere even my Jewish friends are uncomfortable saying anything supporting Israel. Where is this rabidly pro-Israel mob?

danso 2y ago

tangent: it might not be worth the tens of billions that have been dumped into the "Metaverse", but I've always thought FB rebranding as "Meta" was a savvy strategic decision. Unlike Alphabet — which everyone still calls "Google" b/c Google search is still the most useful and ubiquitous part of the Alphabet conglomerate — plenty of people use things like Whatsapp and IG without ever having to touch FB (beyond its login infrastructure) and many of these users despise FB and its perceived "boomer" audience and content. "Meta AI" at least sounds much more congruent and palatable than "Facebook AI", even if the people and processes remain the same.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

benreesman 2y ago

FAIR really does stand out from the field on available weights, safety considerations that seem at least plausibly connected to abuse potential, and a long-term, serious academic research agenda. And I’ll remind you that their ocean of multi-modal, longitudinal over decades training set is not in any “uncertain” state as concerns copyright. I’m pretty fricken annoyed with e.g. Boz given the fact that people at least sort of believe Carmack and Palmer now, which means they at least sort of believe me now. But that increases, not decreases my obligation to be fair, and Meta AI is on fire.

aaroninsf 2y ago

False. Everything there are doing is in service of advancing the singularly corrupt surveillance and "consumer" control service that is their bread and butter. Tactical contributions are entirely in the service of strategic goals, in the service of a leadership and culture who have proven to unerringly do the worst thing possible so long as it increases their own wealth and power. The list of whistleblowers and insider accounts of reprehensible and inexcusable abuses is endless and ever-growing. Wtf would ever engage with them or their products? Their models are the moral equivalent of "good data" from experiments run in gulags and concentraiton camps.

jgalt212 2y ago

favorite comment from reddit > Anything that pisses Sam "regulation for thee not for me" Altman off makes me extremely happy

arisAlexis 2y ago

No, as Hinton says in his own words "it's crazy to open source something so powerful". OpenAI is being responsible, LeCun still thinks AI is not smarter than a cat (literally he said that month ago). And he has taken Zuck for a ride. Ilya and Hinton can be considered the inventors of this whole LLM novelty and they both agree they should not be open sourced. Says a lot.

peacemankelvin 2y ago

hello mate so sorry but I came across your page and I thought I should pass this vital info,Well I suggest you should message Rothstein_code on instagram or Facebook @Rothstein_Code he’s a staff at meta ,and Their ic3 who handles account recoveries,this is an opportunity to reach one of their staff, I lost my account and the support teams couldn't do anything about it but this guy was able to help me out,all thanks to him. Hey! The support team doesn't work no more After the pandemic so You can still get access to your account am sure, quickly send a message to @Rothstein_code on Facebook/Instagram page he will sort this out for you,he works with meta.