|
|
|
|
|
by commoner
1033 days ago
|
|
Disappointing to see Wired uncritically repeat Meta's deceptive marketing. Llama 2 is not open source because it does not allow unrestricted use. In addition to the "Acceptable Use Policy" and the "700 million users" restriction mentioned in the article, Meta also does not allow any user to use Llama 2 to improve other LLMs, which is another usage restriction that prevents Llama 2 from being open source: > v. You will not use the Llama Materials or any output or results of the Llama Materials to improve any other large language model (excluding Llama 2 or derivative works thereof). https://ai.meta.com/llama/license/ On the other hand, Ars Technica correctly saw through Meta's deceptive marketing to discern that, despite Meta branding Llama 2 as "open source", Llama 2 is only source-available: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/meta-... |
|