He is definitely in the same list as Trump and Elon Musk.
Because he’s an insecure and greedy child.
He’s also a sociopath who will say and do anything to get his way.
I dont give a fuck what you want mark. nobody is. what i want is for you to fuck off.
How about a no.
Yes
Money? Is it money?
clicks article
For Meta, it’s all about the money.
Shocking.
I taught myself programming in the 80s, then worked myself from waitress and line cook to programmer, UXD, and design lead to the point of being in the running for an Apple design award in the 2010s.
But I cared more than anything about making things FOR people. Making like easier. Making people happy. Making software that was a joy to use.
Then I got sick with something that’s neither curable nor easily manageable.
Now I’m destitute and have to choose between medicine and food, and I’m staring down homelessness. (eta I was homeless from age 16-18, and I won’t do that again now, with autoimmune dysautonomia and in my mid-50s, even if the alternative is final.)
Fuck these idiots who bought their way into nerd status (like Musk) or had one hot idea that took off and didn’t have to do anything after (this fucking guy). Hundreds or thousands of designers and programmers made these companies, and were tossed out like trash so a couple of people can be rock stars, making more per hour than most of us will see in a lifetime.
Slay the dragons.
I mean, didn’t he famously steal the idea?
His “idea” was about how to monetize a concept already in existence on MySpace, facilitated by completely ignoring any ethical constraints. That, and a snobbery-based product launch through the Ivies.
You’re right. I forgot about the lawsuit and settlement (for $65m). They’re both frauds.
We’re trying! You didn’t know Karla when you were there did you? She had the best stories about Spain.
I knew a Karla, but she was from Romania. Fantastic person. I miss her.
For Meta, it’s all about the money.
And avoiding regulation
Well yeah, because following regulations has an impact on the bottom line.
Well, they have almost always circumvented them instead, but that impacts the bottom line too.
But at least that way they get to power trip
Yup, lawyers are expensive
One is in direct relation with the other
The time it took me to reach this conclusion, after seeing the headline, is measured in quectoseconds.
That’s alotl seconds!
Several thousand is a lot, sure.
Kinda funny how when mega corps can benefit from the millions upon millions of developer hours that they’re not paying for they’re all for open source. But when the mega corps have to ante up (with massive hardware purchases out of reach of any of said developers) they’re suddenly less excited about sharing their work.
I’ve been begging my company to commit to 1% of our revenue toward open source software we use.
It would be life changing for many of these devs.
You are describing parasitic behavior
A cancer does this also.
Billionaires are a cancer on the body politic.
Meta’s Llama models also impose licensing restrictions on its users. For example, if you have an extremely successful AI program that uses Llama code, you’ll have to pay Meta to use it. That’s not open source. Period.
open source != no license restrictions
According to Meta, “Existing open source definitions for software do not encompass the complexities of today’s rapidly advancing AI models. We are committed to keep working with the industry on new definitions to serve everyone safely and responsibly within the AI community.”
i think, he’s got a point, tho
is ai open source, when the trainig data isn’t?
as i understand, right now: yes, it’s enough, that the code is open source. and i think that’s a big problemi’m not deep into ai, so correct me if i’m wrong.
Software licenses that “discriminate against any person or group of persons” or “restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor” are not open source. Llama’s license doesn’t just restrict Llama from being used by companies with “700 million monthly active users”, it also restricts Llama from being used to “create, train, fine tune, or otherwise improve an AI model” or being used for military use (although Meta made an exception for the US military). Therefore, Llama is not open source.
Open source software doesn’t, by definition, place restrictions on usage.
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor.
Clauses like “you can use this software freely except in specific circumstances” fly against that. Open source licenses usually have very little to say about what the software should be used for, and usually just as an affirmation that you can use the software for whatever you want.
I understand the same way and I think there’s a lot of gray area which makes it hard to just say “the data also needs to be open source for the code to be open source”. What would that mean for postgreSQL? Does it magically turn closed source if I don’t share what’s in my db? What would it mean to every open source software that stores and uses that stored data?
I’m not saying the AI models shouldn’t be open source, I’m saying reigning in the models needs to be done very carefully because it’s very easy to overreach and open up a whole other can of worms.
PostgreSQL is not built on top of the data you host in your db. It’s not a valid comparison.
I don’t think any of our classical open licenses from the 80s and 90s were ever created with AI in mind. They are inadequate. An update or new one is needed.
Stallman, spit out the toe cheese and get to work.
The OSI have had a go: https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition
To note is that this definition was discussed for awhile with many engineers in the AI field, including from Meta.
I think the licence type he is looking for is shareware
Desperately trying tap in to the general trust/safety feel that open source software typically has. Trying to muddy the waters because they’ve proven they cannot be trusted whatsoever
when the data used to train the AI is copyrighted, how do you make it open source? it’s a valid question.
one thing is the model or the code that trains the AI. the other thing is the data that produces the weights which determines how the model predicts
of course, the obligatory fuck meta and the zuck and all that but there is a legal conundrum here we need to address that don’t fit into our current IP legal framework
my preferred solution is just to eliminate IP entirely
when the data used to train the AI is copyrighted, how do you make it open source?
When part of my code base belongs to someone else, how do I make it open source? By open sourcing the parts that belong to me, while clarifying that it’s only partially open source.
I mean, you can have open source weights, training data, and code/model architecture. If you’ve done all three it’s an open model, otherwise you state open “component”. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
If people could stop redefining words, that would go a long way to fixing our current strife.
Not a total solution, but it would clarify the discussion. I loathe people who redefine and weaponize words.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
I have some Aladeen news for you my friend
No open source license type where corporations still have to pay?
If you are referring to licenses that prohibit commercial use or prevent certain types of users from using the software, those licenses are not open source because they “discriminate against any person or group of persons”.
No, because that would no longer be open in the open source sense.
It’s either open for everyone, or it isn’t open.
Edit: sorry to whoever doesn’t like it, but it’s literally how “open source” is defined
No, software being free as in beer is not a necessary condition for being open-source. And if the code is not free as in beer, the pricing model can be whatever the hell you want, as long as the code is shared when the user is licensed. That can mean an expensive license for enterprise use coexisting with a free license for (say) researchers and individual devs.
No, not in the way GP wrote. You’re not allowed to have your license discriminate between users, so you’d have to sell your software to everyone, not just big companies.
Either no one pays, or everyone pays.
Open source software can be sold at different prices to different customers, and still remain open source. Open source software can also be sold only to certain types of customers, and still remain open source. Who the developer decides to sell or distribute the software to, and at what price, is unrelated to how the software is licensed.
However, because the Open Source Definition prohibits open source software licenses from discriminating against “any person or group of persons”, the customers who buy open source software cannot be restricted from reselling or redistributing the software to any other individual or organization.
Right, which means that you practically cannot give open source software for free to non-corporations while selling it to corporations while still being fully open source, as the corporations can simply get it for free from any non-corporation.
Exactly!
I appreciate the clarification, thank you!
And that’s literally what the article says lol I don’t know why you were downvoted.
Emily Omier, a well-regarded open-source start-up consultant, emphasized that open source is a binary standard set by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), not a spectrum. "Either you’re open source, or you are not.
The binary mentioned is different. Omier was saying either you share all the source code, or it’s not open-source. You don’t get to retain some proprietary blob for an essential component and still say the whole app is open-source. Pricing is an entirely different question.
