Hacker News Reader

Comment by nkrisc | Hacker News Reader

If a bad actor’s actions appear good, skepticism is warranted.

The actor is bad, the deed is good. Though, the open sourcing of llama 2 and beyond was pushed by Yann Lecun and others, some of whom have moved on from the company. Zuckerberg supports the AI initiatives but he's hardly leading them himself.

What argument do you have that releasing llama was actually good? They gave AI access to terrorists and criminals as much as they did to independent researchers. Arguably they are partially responsible for escalating blackhat cyber capabilities that are contributing to the rapid rise in attacks. Open source is neither inherently good or bad. The most you could really say is that it was accelerationist

> They gave AI access to terrorists and criminals as much as they did to independent researchers.

That's an odd hill to die own. Lots of despicable people use iPhones. Does that Apple is somehow complicit?

No, it means iPhones are neither good nor bad.

This is such a ridiculous response that I actually don't think it deserves any further time investment from me.

If you can’t explain why releasing llama was a net good then why bother commenting at all? One could surmise you don’t actually have any moral grounding for it and just like that you get to play with it for free

I can answer that question if you'd like, but the question you presented initially was extremely loaded and recycling tired political rhetoric that has already been beaten to a pulp.

Or you can just keep on making unfounded assumptions about my "moral grounding" if you'd like, you didn't leave a good first impression with me and I'm not terribly interested in discussing this with you if this is how it's going to be. Discussions are about finding common ground, but you seem to be looking for an argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com