3 ms·

> I was going to release Llama4, but because PunchTornado said pedantic things, y'know what? I'm not gonna. Its not because he said things. Instead it is tha

by stale2002 2y ago

> I was going to release Llama4, but because PunchTornado said pedantic things, y'know what? I'm not gonna. Its not because he said things. Instead it is that (if implemented) the things that he is advocating for would actually significantly reduce the amount of open-whatever-you-want-to-call-it models available as most of it would all get shut down. If these people don't want these models to exist and they are just using this concern trolling to get rid of all these AI models, then I wish they would just say so openly. Because that would be the result of their positions. It would be a destruction of most of the more-open AI models that we have available today and an end to the open-whatever AI industry. If thats what you want, just say it, and then we can talk about the pros and cons of a completely centralized AI ecosystem that is only controlled by OpenAI, Google, and the government and how if the destruction of the AI startup space that is reliant on the models given out by meta/ect is good or bad.

fragmede 2y ago
it's not concern trolling, it's that the words used don't describe what it is. what Mark Zuckerberg has done with releasing llama3 and making the model available is frickin awesome, just don't call it open source! it's model available. Trying to paint me into a corner with a false dichotomy, that if I want it to be called model available instead of open source, and that in doing so, I want a dystopian future where megacorps have AGI and we're all at their mercy isn't going to work. I don't want the models to not be available, what I want is to see what's being used to create the models, the source, if you will, and thus the alignment side of the source, and why it won't answer "how do I make cocaine", as if I'm going to go off and somehow become Tony Montoya. We may never get that, but that's what calling it open source and have it mean that would entail. Making the models available to the plebs is a generous thing for Mark to do, but that doesn't mean we can't ask for more. Or maybe we shouldn't; and just be grateful for his benevolence, because it's not like OpenAI has done the same with ChatGPT. I will give them credit for Whisper though.

fragmede 2y ago

it's not concern trolling, it's that the words used don't describe what it is. what Mark Zuckerberg has done with releasing llama3 and making the model available is frickin awesome, just don't call it open source! it's model available. Trying to paint me into a corner with a false dichotomy, that if I want it to be called model available instead of open source, and that in doing so, I want a dystopian future where megacorps have AGI and we're all at their mercy isn't going to work. I don't want the models to not be available, what I want is to see what's being used to create the models, the source, if you will, and thus the alignment side of the source, and why it won't answer "how do I make cocaine", as if I'm going to go off and somehow become Tony Montoya. We may never get that, but that's what calling it open source and have it mean that would entail. Making the models available to the plebs is a generous thing for Mark to do, but that doesn't mean we can't ask for more. Or maybe we shouldn't; and just be grateful for his benevolence, because it's not like OpenAI has done the same with ChatGPT. I will give them credit for Whisper though.