4 ms·

You get photo/video storage worth a fraction of a cent. Llama doesn't have a free to use service. People got 'free service' in exchange for putting ads around

by ipaddr 2y ago

You get photo/video storage worth a fraction of a cent. Llama doesn't have a free to use service. People got 'free service' in exchange for putting ads around content not for this. It's a terrible deal no one asked the users if they want to agree to. It's visiting a website and saving an image and claiming the website owes you for storage.

baby 2y ago
Talk for you, I can't imagine what my life would have been without facebook/whatsapp. I've met countless of friends, probably am married to my wife today thanks to it, and without that I wouldn't be able to keep in touch with most of my friends today. The "facebook is not useful for me so I don't get it" needs to die seriously
giobox 2y ago
> Llama doesn't have a free to use service. Llama is embedded for free in a ton of Meta products right now: 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... > "A better assistant: Thanks to our latest advances with Meta Llama 3, we believe Meta AI is now the most intelligent AI assistant you can use for free" Want to just use it in a browser? https://www.meta.ai/ https://www.meta.ai/
throwaway913242 2y ago
Didn't the users explicitly agree to the deal when they made an account and clicked "I agree to the Terms of Use"? Sure there's a degree of "oh nobody reads those anyway" to it that society at large should be approaching more rigorously (maybe a common-contract type of system), but at the end of the day the users are choosing to interact with a service, upload their content to it, and explicitly WANTING their content to be shared (to their friends, on their feeds, etc). The real question is whether the agreement that was made between them and their users during 2007-now covered uses like training AI, but most likely it was a very broad "we can use your data how we want" type of statement and that agreement wasn't fought (or fought hard enough?) back then.
squigz 2y ago
> It's a terrible deal no one asked the users if they want to agree to. Every single user of Facebook was asked and agreed to it. [0] This was not unexpected. Anyone who read the ToS of most large tech companies in the past 10 years, and gave it more than a few seconds thought, would have realized that they were giving them access to use the data however they want - a fact many of us have been warning people about for many years. LLMs have also been an expected evolution of technology for many years. Nobody should have been surprised about this. [0] https://www.facebook.com/terms.php https://www.facebook.com/terms.php

by ipaddr 2y ago

baby 2y ago

Talk for you, I can't imagine what my life would have been without facebook/whatsapp. I've met countless of friends, probably am married to my wife today thanks to it, and without that I wouldn't be able to keep in touch with most of my friends today. The "facebook is not useful for me so I don't get it" needs to die seriously

giobox 2y ago

> Llama doesn't have a free to use service. Llama is embedded for free in a ton of Meta products right now: 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... > "A better assistant: Thanks to our latest advances with Meta Llama 3, we believe Meta AI is now the most intelligent AI assistant you can use for free" Want to just use it in a browser? https://www.meta.ai/ https://www.meta.ai/

throwaway913242 2y ago

Didn't the users explicitly agree to the deal when they made an account and clicked "I agree to the Terms of Use"? Sure there's a degree of "oh nobody reads those anyway" to it that society at large should be approaching more rigorously (maybe a common-contract type of system), but at the end of the day the users are choosing to interact with a service, upload their content to it, and explicitly WANTING their content to be shared (to their friends, on their feeds, etc). The real question is whether the agreement that was made between them and their users during 2007-now covered uses like training AI, but most likely it was a very broad "we can use your data how we want" type of statement and that agreement wasn't fought (or fought hard enough?) back then.

squigz 2y ago

> It's a terrible deal no one asked the users if they want to agree to. Every single user of Facebook was asked and agreed to it. [0] This was not unexpected. Anyone who read the ToS of most large tech companies in the past 10 years, and gave it more than a few seconds thought, would have realized that they were giving them access to use the data however they want - a fact many of us have been warning people about for many years. LLMs have also been an expected evolution of technology for many years. Nobody should have been surprised about this. [0] https://www.facebook.com/terms.php https://www.facebook.com/terms.php