4 ms·
Note: GNU AGPLv3. Industry labs won’t touch this with a hundred foot pole. Given that they’re the only ones with access to serious resources, it could be a whil
by ein0p 2y ago
Note: GNU AGPLv3. Industry labs won’t touch this with a hundred foot pole. Given that they’re the only ones with access to serious resources, it could be a while before we see a large model of this architecture
- striking 2y agoReimplementation from paper is pretty common, though, no?
- ein0p 2y agoYes, that’s why it’ll take time. There’s so much stuff competing for researchers’ attention, and experimentation with this takes so much time and $$$, that if it wasn’t for Sepp Hochreiter on the list of authors this could get ignored entirely. IOW it’s not the seller’s market for novel architectures right now.
- htrp 2y agoYou can't outspend the industry labs given the compute inflation in transformer architectures (unless you are ridiculously well connected in the venture/sovereign funding communities). And realistically, do we need another GPT4 evaluation paper?
- ein0p 2y agoThat is by far not the only thing industry labs are working on currently. I work in one. My group might be unusual, but I can’t name a single currently active project here that is not a departure from Transformers one way or another. I expect a ton of such efficiency oriented work in the next 4-5 years. We can’t be burning money as inefficiently as we do it right now.
- nurple 2y agoHow does AGPLv3 impact a lab's ability to do research on an implementation?
- ein0p 2y agoIANAL, and this is not legal advice, I don’t think it really impacts anything for academic research, but Legal usually has a major fit when AGPL is even peripherally mentioned.
- mindcrime 2y agoInterestingly, the AGPL has been something of a "boogey-man" to some commercial entities, going back 20+ years now. The GPL too, albeit to a lesser extent. Anyway, this may well be a great opportunity for a firm who bothers to look a bit deeper and say "OK, maybe the AGPL isn't something to be scared of after all". Just comply with the terms and "no harm, no foul".
- stonogo 2y agoYou might be thinking of a different license, since the AGPL is not yet twenty years old.
- mindcrime 2y ago> the AGPL is not yet twenty years old. That's only true IF you're thinking specifically of the GNU AGPL. The AGPL - more broadly construed - has a pre-GNU history that goes back further. That said, the GNU AGPL evolved out of the original AGPL. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_Lice... In March 2002, Affero, Inc. published the original Affero General Public License (AGPLv1) for use with the Affero project and made the new license available for use by other software-as-a-service developers.
- bsenftner 2y ago[flagged]
- josephcsible 2y agoIt doesn't. They're able to; they just choose not to because of an irrational fear/hatred of the license.
- dheera 2y agoThere's a really easy way around this, and that is to offer high salaries to the authors to join the company and reimplement their work. For researchers, in all honestly that is a very, very good reason to go GPL. If someone wants to profit off of it, it's not that they can't use the code commercially, they are just forced to hire you or pay you to dual-license it. There's no reason why a company whose stock goes up $10B due to your model can't cut you a few million of that.
- kadushka 2y agoThese researchers are being recruited regardless of what license they put on their academic code. In fact, I really doubt anyone in the industry cares about the license for this work. It's not a patent.
- jerpint 2y agoMost “serious” companies would probably rewrite it from scratch anyway