The synde remarks at metas llama license that doesn't allow companies with 700 million monthly active users to use it, while this model also doesn't have a really 'open' license itself and also this paragraph:
>As the ecosystem evolves, we urge the wider AI community to move beyond simplistic ’open vs. closed’ debates, and avoid either exaggerating or minimising potential harms, as we believe a nuanced, collaborative approach to risks and benefits is essential. At Google DeepMind we’re committed to developing high-quality evaluations and invite the community to join us in this effort for a deeper understanding of AI systems.
Well, given that that restriction added to the meta-llama license is aimed at Google, is petty, and goes against open source norms, I think it’s reasonable that they should feel this way about it.
Ah, thanks for clarifying! It's a good flag, though I wouldn't classify it as a snide comment personally. I'd be interested in hearing what you find snide or offensive about it -- do you think we shouldn't be trying to bring the whole community along for evals/safety/etc, regardless of open/closed?
>As the ecosystem evolves, we urge the wider AI community to move beyond simplistic ’open vs. closed’ debates, and avoid either exaggerating or minimising potential harms, as we believe a nuanced, collaborative approach to risks and benefits is essential. At Google DeepMind we’re committed to developing high-quality evaluations and invite the community to join us in this effort for a deeper understanding of AI systems.