14 ms·
That's simply not true. The reason why llama is open source is simply because it got leaked, then llama.cpp was the real game changer which was built from the g
by axegon_ 2mo ago
That's simply not true. The reason why llama is open source is simply because it got leaked, then llama.cpp was the real game changer which was built from the ground up in depressingly short amount of time. Meta had no choice but to take the L and "support" the open source community. The angry "I-hate-you-and-I-hope-you-die" kind of support.
- tehlike 2mo agoWhy do you think they continued to do it? Ps: I work for meta, but not in AI related orgs.
- SV_BubbleTime 2mo agoIt’s obvious? They still hate us and hope we die… at least every movement they make seems like that. I kid. I’m all for meta releasing more open weight models. I mean… I’m also 1000% certain that China is going to undercut whatever they can do if even not a technology reason but a legal reason. I’ve seen some wild stuff posted that has been made with Minimax… things a US company could never allow to happen.
- amarcheschi 2mo ago>wild stuff posted that has been made with Minimax… things a US company could never allow to happen. Such as?
- echelon 2mo agoMinimax has NO filters of any kind, and it's roughly Veo/Sora-quality. You can generate a video of just about any thought in your head at all. IP holders and politicians will not like that. Granted, human artists have always been capable of this. It's just never been worth it to bring most ideas into fruition. Now there's minimal cost to do so. Early Sora, Grok Imagine, and Seedance 2.0 had few filters. Disney, Nintendo, et al. eventually stopped them all from using their IP, which made the appeal fade for a lot of users. Kling and Nano Banana can still generate IP oddly enough.
- axegon_ 2mo agoI've worked long enough at large tech giants to know how things really are. Also a large part of the reason why I'd never join one again, no matter what they have to offer. Meta, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Openai, anthropic, oracle, nvidia, Microsoft, etc. - same shit with a different badge on top.
- truncate 2mo agoTBH, having worked at all big-tech, startup and mid-sized companies, pretty much most has some major pros and cons of their own, and these days ever more so. With certain big-tech at-least there some chance of getting decent WLB.
- axegon_ 2mo agoI prefer hectic work and impossible deadlines at 3am over the flat-but-not-really hierarchy and the constant dick-measuring contests.
- truncate 2mo agoI don't think they are mutually exclusive, that if you take one you give another. TBH, its more about the team you work with than startup vs big-tech company thing. I don't know how many of big-tech have flat hierarchy, at-least not the ones I've worked at and the people/team culture have definitely better. Were there times there was bureaucracy and all, sure, but I personally would take take good WLB most of the year, over fucking up my health/relationships over making some random software on claude code all night that these days anyway most want to be AI slop. If I've the energy to work extra, I'd work on my own hobby software projects. That said, this or that, its all personal preference. So no wrong way of life here. Whatever, you want your life to be.
- ternaryoperator 2mo agoI don’t think Nvidia fits on that list. It’s a company with a pro-employee culture, very few layoffs, and many employees who have been there a long time.
- bastawhiz 2mo agoBecause it took off. All of a sudden they captured more customers than they could have imagined they would have, and throwing away the lead they unintentionally gave themselves (in terms of usage and mindshare) would have undone all of that and more.
- dolmen 2mo agoCustomers or just consumers?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- cma 2mo ago> The reason why llama is open source is simply because it got leaked It arguably didn't really get leaked, and they had the .edu req mainly for fair use education exemption when legality of models was much more uncertain.
- andy99 2mo agoIt’s hard to know in retrospect what was strategy and what was dumb luck. This was in the midst of hysterical calls to limit access by “AI researchers” and safety/ethics types, when very facile takes still has a lot of sway (I think we’ll feel the same in three years about the current Fable stuff). It may have been hard for Meta to just release it outright. What ended up happening was fairly limited gating followed by a “leaked” magnet link and llama.cpp which really brought a whole revolution in open use and changed the conversation completely. I have no idea what role Meta played here, it may have been nothing, but they certainly could have been more guarded if they were really worried about the leak. The result was a big change in the trajectory of personal and open source AI use and even the dialog about it. Whatever the exact intentions, they were a key player.
- Forgeties79 2mo agoI don’t understand how you can look at what’s happening right now and call people simply calling for caution “hysterical”
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- timmmmmmay 2mo agoI don't think you can characterize the discussion around then as simple calling for caution. There was a serious attempt to keep all access to even very basic LLM techniques locked into essentially an exclusive guild.
- Forgeties79 2mo agoIf you grab the most extreme examples you can argue anything. The general feeling was “exercise caution” and “we need to think about this.”
- iugtmkbdfil834 2mo agoOh stop, the current crop of kneecapping llms is already bad enough with how they cripple those. It would have been even worse if the 'we need to think about this' crowd kept the reins. At least now, we can have both: safe corporate crap and whatever you want llm.
- JoshTriplett 2mo ago> The reason why llama is open source Llama has never been open source. It's source-available, but still proprietary, under terms that (among other things) say "no competing with us, you have to buy a license for that".
- ekianjo 2mo agoThere is no source available. Its just open weights.
- thayne 2mo ago"open source" doesn't even make much sense for a model. But llama isn't even fully open weights due to the restrictions on its use.
- xigoi 2mo agoOpen source would mean publishing the training data and code.
- thayne 2mo agoMaybe. That is still pretty different from the source code for software though. Suppose OpenAI released all the training data, training methodology, and training source code, but didn't release the weights for a frontier model. Would that allow you to build the same model? Not unless you have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on it. And even then you won't get the exact same thing. That's not to say it isn't valuable. But I'm not sure "open source" is really the right term for that either.
- pixl97 2mo agoYea, sounds like an open source nuclear power plant. Knowing how to build it is only half the battle.
- maffulli 2mo ago
- raffael_de 2mo agothe "albeit" gives away that the person you're responding to intended to write "unintentionally".