Open source requires, at the very least, that you can use it for any purpose. This is not the case with Llama.
The Llama license has a lot of restrictions, based on user base size, type of use, etc.
For example you're not allowed to use Llama to train or improve other models.
But it goes much further than that. The government of India can't use Llama because they're too large. Sex workers are not allowed to use Llama due to the acceptable use policy of the license. Then there is also the vague language probibiting discrimination, racism etc.. good luck getting something like that approved by your legal team.
Note that Meta's models are not open source in any interpretation of the term.
* You can't use them for any purpose. For example, the license prohibits using these models to train other models.
* You can't meaningfully modify them given there is almost no information available about the training data, how they were trained, or how the training data was processed.
As such, the model itself is not available under an open source license and the AI does not comply with the "open source AI" definition by OSI.
It's an utter disgrace for Meta to write such a blogpost patting themselves on the back while lying about how open these models are.
Oh, wow, I came here for the same thing. The tone of the post got more and more annoying as it progressed.
Posting quotes from reddit as if they're intellectual discussions was a red flag, but this specific statement was just too much to ignore.
Although I work on Linux almost daily, I'm happy to say it's possible to simply avoid those kinds of people. Fostering a healthy environment where people can discuss and disagree respectfully is incredibly important for volunteer-led projects like Linux distributions.
> On the third hand, I can't deny some amount of schadenfreude looking at Apple having to deal with the same "do the work first, we'll judge if it meets our review standard afterwards" treatment as they do to developers.
That's not really how the process was supposed to work. Apple has had a lot of discussions with the EC over the past year about this law and its implementation.
This is common and the goal is to help the company figure out how to implement it.
However, from the EU side, it seemed as if Apple completely misunderstood what the discussions with the EU were for.
Apple was mainly focused on trying to lobby against all restrictions, not realizing the EU already made up their mind. The EU was trying to prepare Apple, but instead Apple dragged their feet, remained in denial, and were then suddenly surprised that yes, indeed, they really can't lobby their way out of compliance.
When thinking about what governance structure to use for our hackerspace, we thought about RFCs for a bit, but I'm glad we went with something different.
RFCs give way too much power to people who like to argue. This quickly kills enthousiasm in people proposing change.
The original argument is not "they created encryption that isn't broken before". The argument is "encryption created by competitions that are only refereed by NIST is trustworthy"
Stars are formed when clouds of gas and dust collapse into themselves.
Either the cloud is big and dense enough to collapse into a star, or it will remain as a cloud.
Our Jupiter was created when, during the collapse, other forces pulled part of the collapsing cloud away from the sun, into a stable orbit.
> Stars form when the dust and gas clouds in a nebula cool, progressively fragment and eventually collapse under their own gravity. The smallest stars are about 80 Jupiter masses, below which the core is not dense enough to fuse hydrogen, but smaller objects can coalesce through the same process, including dimly glowing brown dwarfs – sometimes called failed stars – and, below about 13 Jupiter masses, planetary-mass objects. But theoretical predications suggest that the lower boundary for an object forming through a star-like gravitational collapse is about three to seven Jupiter masses.
Interesting how rebuilding the support from the ground up allowed them to find a bug in the existing implementation. It really speaks to the quality of Asahi's work, imo.
If that doesn't even meet the threshold for "terrible", then what does?