3 ms·

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 ch

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.

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.