5 ms·

Other industries have seen themselves "poisoned" by vendor-specific definitions of networking protocols, programming paradigms and languages, and so on. The con

Other industries have seen themselves "poisoned" by vendor-specific definitions of networking protocols, programming paradigms and languages, and so on. The concern is real. You can't just say "Well, I like this product so I approve of the vendor's actions." The whole crux is to get an objective definition of what "open AI" is, and how it needs to behave. If others agree (or disagree) with the vendor that doesn't mean the vendor is permitted to make its unilateral de facto declaration a de jure consensus decision. That's not how standards work.

Chance-Device 2y ago
The gist of the article, which is roundly negative towards Meta and Mark Zuckerberg personally simply because he’s an easy target and they want to score some cheap points, is that they/he are actively causing harm by not releasing the data, training methods and everything else that goes into the creation and use of the models. So, the choice is give up everything that gives you any advantage, and hence any incentive to develop anything in the first place, or you’re the bad guy. I’m not sure how they think the world works. But I agree that we should be clear about our standards. So I’d suggest that those with these expectations adopt a new brand other than “open source”. Maybe “puritan approved”.
- fragmede 2y ago
  model available or open weights are right there. Nothing puritanical about it. the standards for calling something open source are relatively simple - you have to share the source to begin to call it open source. they have not done so, and asking them to use a different name for it when they're not sharing the source really doesn't seem like too much to ask. Except it's Mark and Meta, which are household names, and I'm some Internet rando, so my voice is smaller, hence the accusations of bullying. If someone decides for you that your new name is shithead, and everyone goes along with it because that person's bigger than you, thats bullying.
  - Chance-Device 2y ago
    Meta is telling everyone to call you a shithead? That’s really the equivalent of what’s happening here?
    - ahartmetz 2y ago
      It's more like Meta calling shithead over there "Honorable Mr. Jones"
    - benterix 2y ago
      I observe a weird patter in your replies - you twist the intention of OPs in the way that they didn't intend. In this particular case, meta's models are not "open source" although Zucks calls them as such. And because of that, people also started to believe they are open source.
      - Chance-Device 2y ago
        The poster in this case used a metaphor where calling Meta a bully to the open source community was justified by likening the situation to someone being forcibly renamed “shithead”, presumably by a bully on the schoolyard. I’m asking if he really thinks that’s an appropriate comparison. The answer of course is no, and if the answer is no, then why did they choose it? To cast the situation in a dishonestly negative light. So who’s twisting what? Maybe you need to get better at reading intentions.
        benterix 2y ago
        I disagree with the parent's choice of using metaphors because it was imprecise and should express a lie rather than an insult. Nevertheless, the intent is easy to understand: the powerful twist the meanings of words and the weak can do nothing about it.
koolala 2y ago
"Open AI" started the corporate takeover "open" messaging and Meta ran with it.
- Chance-Device 2y ago
  That’s a nice sentence you’ve written there, but what exactly is it supposed to mean? Is it supposed to give the false impression that OpenAI and Meta’s actions have been equivalent with respect to releasing their models? And if it isn’t an attempt to mislead in such a way, then what exactly does it mean?
  - bloqs 2y ago
    Please try to not be overly attacking or flaming in your responses, its against the rules and makes discussion unpleasant
  - bionhoward 2y ago
    OpenAI is absolutely a misleading name because they have lax policies on human inputs (stealing everyone’s IP and not even letting you truly delete your account) but then turn around and say “developing models that compete” (vague as fuck) on OpenAI chatbot outputs is “illegal, harmful, or abusive” (if it is, they only act like it when it benefits them) I guess they’re trying to call out OpenAI more than group them with Meta
  - koolala 2y ago
    You don't want AI data to be open? You don't want massive libraries of open knowledge spanning all cultures accessible finally to anyone in the world in any language?
    - PeterCorless 2y ago
      There are different classes of stakeholders. Yes, some data is open and the creators of it want it to be shared openly. Other people want their copyrights upheld and for there to be no intellectual property appropriation (theft) of their creations. There is also the issue of aggregation. For example, Wikipedia is an open and free aggregation of knowledge. But it also cites, quotes, and links out to sources which may be copyrighted works. Note that Wikipedia has very formal guidance as to how to avoid and handle instances of plagiarism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism AI needs to face the fact that it is rife with intellectual property theft. It needs standards for infringed copyright removal. It needs standards for the defense of trademarks. It needs privacy standards to prevent the unauthorized use of personal data, images, recordings and other works from people around the globe. If AI is permitted to simply glut itself on every artistic creation and every human on the planet, sans limitations, it is basically the equivalent of a crime spree.

Chance-Device 2y ago

The gist of the article, which is roundly negative towards Meta and Mark Zuckerberg personally simply because he’s an easy target and they want to score some cheap points, is that they/he are actively causing harm by not releasing the data, training methods and everything else that goes into the creation and use of the models. So, the choice is give up everything that gives you any advantage, and hence any incentive to develop anything in the first place, or you’re the bad guy. I’m not sure how they think the world works. But I agree that we should be clear about our standards. So I’d suggest that those with these expectations adopt a new brand other than “open source”. Maybe “puritan approved”.

fragmede 2y ago
model available or open weights are right there. Nothing puritanical about it. the standards for calling something open source are relatively simple - you have to share the source to begin to call it open source. they have not done so, and asking them to use a different name for it when they're not sharing the source really doesn't seem like too much to ask. Except it's Mark and Meta, which are household names, and I'm some Internet rando, so my voice is smaller, hence the accusations of bullying. If someone decides for you that your new name is shithead, and everyone goes along with it because that person's bigger than you, thats bullying.
- Chance-Device 2y ago
  Meta is telling everyone to call you a shithead? That’s really the equivalent of what’s happening here?
  - ahartmetz 2y ago
    It's more like Meta calling shithead over there "Honorable Mr. Jones"
  - benterix 2y ago
    I observe a weird patter in your replies - you twist the intention of OPs in the way that they didn't intend. In this particular case, meta's models are not "open source" although Zucks calls them as such. And because of that, people also started to believe they are open source.
    - Chance-Device 2y ago
      The poster in this case used a metaphor where calling Meta a bully to the open source community was justified by likening the situation to someone being forcibly renamed “shithead”, presumably by a bully on the schoolyard. I’m asking if he really thinks that’s an appropriate comparison. The answer of course is no, and if the answer is no, then why did they choose it? To cast the situation in a dishonestly negative light. So who’s twisting what? Maybe you need to get better at reading intentions.
      - benterix 2y ago
        I disagree with the parent's choice of using metaphors because it was imprecise and should express a lie rather than an insult. Nevertheless, the intent is easy to understand: the powerful twist the meanings of words and the weak can do nothing about it.

koolala 2y ago

"Open AI" started the corporate takeover "open" messaging and Meta ran with it.

Chance-Device 2y ago
That’s a nice sentence you’ve written there, but what exactly is it supposed to mean? Is it supposed to give the false impression that OpenAI and Meta’s actions have been equivalent with respect to releasing their models? And if it isn’t an attempt to mislead in such a way, then what exactly does it mean?
- bloqs 2y ago
  Please try to not be overly attacking or flaming in your responses, its against the rules and makes discussion unpleasant
- bionhoward 2y ago
  OpenAI is absolutely a misleading name because they have lax policies on human inputs (stealing everyone’s IP and not even letting you truly delete your account) but then turn around and say “developing models that compete” (vague as fuck) on OpenAI chatbot outputs is “illegal, harmful, or abusive” (if it is, they only act like it when it benefits them) I guess they’re trying to call out OpenAI more than group them with Meta
- koolala 2y ago
  You don't want AI data to be open? You don't want massive libraries of open knowledge spanning all cultures accessible finally to anyone in the world in any language?
  - PeterCorless 2y ago
    There are different classes of stakeholders. Yes, some data is open and the creators of it want it to be shared openly. Other people want their copyrights upheld and for there to be no intellectual property appropriation (theft) of their creations. There is also the issue of aggregation. For example, Wikipedia is an open and free aggregation of knowledge. But it also cites, quotes, and links out to sources which may be copyrighted works. Note that Wikipedia has very formal guidance as to how to avoid and handle instances of plagiarism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism AI needs to face the fact that it is rife with intellectual property theft. It needs standards for infringed copyright removal. It needs standards for the defense of trademarks. It needs privacy standards to prevent the unauthorized use of personal data, images, recordings and other works from people around the globe. If AI is permitted to simply glut itself on every artistic creation and every human on the planet, sans limitations, it is basically the equivalent of a crime spree.