Another non-open source license. Getting better but don't let anyone tell you this is open source.
http://marble.onl/posts/software-licenses-masquerading-as-op...
Does everyone also think OpenAI is open source? Or a non-profit? Does putting open in the name just mean you're going to love it?
If you put five HN users in a room you will get at least a dozen definitions of "open source".
>Does everyone also think OpenAI is open source?
No one thinks that OpenAI is open source.
> Or a non-profit?
I think most people just assume that OpenAI is a for profit company (which it is). There is of course a non-profit foundation that is a majority shareholder in it.
> Does putting open in the name just mean you're going to love it?
Obviously not, since people here definitely see Meta as the good guy when compared to OpenAI.
Someone said on HN that just sticking all your source on Github with a permissive license isn’t true open source: it is about the community too!
EDIT: OK, I guess you need the actual source code, too. But once you have the source and an open source license, it's open source, whether it's on github or stored on a thumb drive, and no matter the size of the community around it.
Although I guess you have a point about there being other things that are important... like you might say, Android isn't _really_ open source any more because of the way that Google has gradually made the whole ecosystem dependent on proprietary stuff like Google Play Services, and because of the fact that development happens behind closed doors at google, but technically AOSP is still open source.
> Introducing Llama 2
> The next generation of our open source large language model
> Llama 2 is available for free for research and commercial use.
Meta's business model is "the users are not the customer, they are data sources and things to manipulate," it's especially worrying.
I don't understand the hype behind this. This whole offering is bait
See: macOS using an ancient version of bash to avoid GPLv3, the Elastic to OpenSearch fiasco.
I’m fine just calling “a license”
Even if Meta released this under Apache 2.0, there's the sticky question of the training data licenses.
You need to pay Disney royalties out of every paycheck because you watched Toy Story and Star Wars. These movies updated your own neural weights.
If the AI has seen Star Wars and that's enough to find it liable, then you should be too.
If the AI has seen Star Wars to understand science fiction and modern culture, then it's no different from us or any other artist.
YouTube zaps videos that contain too much copyrighted stuff for this very reason.
It's an exact moral equivalent to learning. I wouldn't expect PyTorch to be running the citric acid cycle under the hood, and that shouldn't matter.
> Copilot reproducing `Q_rsqrt` verbatim, including the magic numbers, formatting and comments.
Humans can recite lots of things verbatim. Song lyrics, Shakespeare, digits of pi, Bible verses, you name it. We're so early, and the models are only one little engineering trick away from not doing this unless requested. We'll probably be able to tackle this at the level of the weights themselves.
> copyright law, which is designed to protect the human creative process only.
This is the point. Does AI contribute positively to the economy and the human condition? Does it outperform the old status quo? We're going to find out, and I'd expect for the law to fit to the outcome it views as optimal.
I'm betting that the law will view this similar to industrialization. That more people will be enabled through AI than inconvenienced, that more works will be created, and that more money will move and flow than before.