[ok123456]

Then why make a fancy landing page instead of just linking to the paper?

Anyway, it's not 2000, you can't get away with releasing a paper without code. In the case of AI/ML, you either need to release the weights, or make some web doodad that allows you to use the model. If that's not there, I just assume that the results aren't reproducible.

[preommr]

> Then why make a fancy landing page instead of just linking to the paper?

Because it's worked for the longest time.

Even a year ago, Google was percieved as being so far ahead. These little papers with their landing pages were like sneek peaks into the advanced tech behind the scenes. It's marketing that brought hype to Google's brand and we were all excited for it because none of the big movers felt enough pressure to actually put stuff out so we were all excited about the possibilities.

[waffletower]

And we are telling them now that this shtick doesn't work any longer in 2023 post-ChatGPT, post-StableDiffusion, post-LLaMA. Our expectations have clearly shifted. Other companies and organizations are creating actual products and sharing actual models. We are done inhaling vapor.

[theaiquestion]

I don't mean to be rude, and to be clear I wish they did release the weights, but what did they lose here?

You don't approve - so what? Releasing the weights doesn't make them money.

I'm skeptical LLaMa is even useful for facebook commercially at least, they don't make money on it, and I doubt anyone developed brand loyalty, more then likely everyone will use whatever the next, best open model is regardless of who makes it.

Llama and SD still don't come close to midjourney/chatgpt/claude when you look at ease of use and infrastructure cost. These "99% the performance of chatgpt" are laughable if you use them (which I have extensively).

> We are done inhaling vapor.

Okay? What were you about to pay for to begin with here?

EDIT: Just to add, it's not like we got nothing from this, this can likely still be something to try with SD.