[hyuuu]

the view of the comments here seems to be quite negative for what meta is doing. Honest question, should they go to the route of openai and closed source + paid access instead? OpenAI or Claude seem to garner more positive views than llama open sourced.

[naming_the_user]

The models are not open source, you're getting the equivalent of a precompiled binary. They are free to use.

[Palmik]

That's a bad analogy. The weights are much closer to source code, because you can directly modify them (fine tune, merge or otherwise) using open source software that Meta released (torchtune, but there are tons of other libraries and frameworks).

[progval]

You can also modify a precompiled binary with the right tools.

[Palmik]

Except doing continued pre-training or fine tuning of the released model weights is the same process through which the original weights were created in the first place. There's no reverse engineering required. Meta engineers working on various products that need custom versions of the Llama model will use the same processes / tools.

[RealStickman_]

Free to use with restrictions, so you maybe get 1.5/4 FOSS freedoms.

[meiraleal]

Not much would change if they did. Meta intentions and OpenAI intentions are the same: reach monopoly and take all the investment back with a 100x return. Anyone that achieves it will be as evil as the other one.

> OpenAI or Claude seem to garner more positive views than llama open sourced.

that's more about Meta than the others. Although OpenAI isn't that far from Meta already.

[troupo]

They use "open source" to whitewash their image.

Now ask yourself a question: where does Meta's data come from? Perhaps from their users' data? And they opted everyone in by default. And made the opt-out process as cumbersome as possible: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1794863603964891567.html And now complain that the EU is preventing them from "collecting rich cultural context" or something https://x.com/nickclegg/status/1834594456689066225

[KaiserPro]

> Perhaps from their users' data?

nope, not yet.

FAIR, the people that do the bigboi training, for a lot of their stuff cant even see user data, because the place they do the training can't support the access.

Its not like openAI where the lawyers don't even know whats going on, because they've not yet been properly taken to court.

at Meta, the lawyers are everywhere and if you do naughty shit to user data, you are going to be absolutely fucked.

[troupo]

> the lawyers are everywhere and if you do naughty shit to user data, you are going to be absolutely fucked.

I even provided the links that has screenshots of their opt-out form.

--- start quote ---

Al at Meta is our collection of generative Al features and experiences, like Meta Al and Al Creative Tools, along with the models that power them.

Information you've shared on our Products and services could be things like:

- Posts

- Photos and their captions

- The messages you send to an Al

...

We may still process information about you to develop and improve Al at Meta, even if you object or don't use our Products and services. For example, this could happen if you or your information:

- Appear anywhere in an image shared on our Products or services by someone who uses them

- Are mentioned in posts or captions that someone else shares on our Products and services

--- end quote ---

See the words "Meta AI" and "models powering it"?

Meta couldn't give crap about simpler clear-cut cases like "don't track users across the internet", much less this.

[KaiserPro]

> I even provided the links that has screenshots of their opt-out form.

and I am asking you to think like a lawyer.

The reason they are doing this is because they want to access user data. They cannot yet.

As I stated in the post, FAIR can't process user data, as a large part of their infra doesn't support it.

If the rest of the AI team want to process the shit people enter into it, they need to get explicit legal review to do so. This warning/ToC change is the direct result of that.

bear in mind that the FCC audits the place every year, so if they see that the lawyers have gone "nope do use that data until we have implied permission" and then the audit turns up that they've just ignored the lawyers, its going to cost literal billions.

> We may still process information about you

Can you outline how might someone reliably and accurately detect your face in a photo taken by a tourist in a public place?

Again, that's lawyer for covering arses.

[troupo]

> and I am asking you to think like a lawyer.

Given that Facebook explicitly said they are going to use user data for training if their AIs and given that Facebook explicitly designed the opt-out form as cumbersome as possible while at the same time saying they will not even honor it if it suits them... they've already talked to their lawyers.

> Can you outline how might someone reliably and accurately detect your face in a photo taken by a tourist in a public place

If a friend of mine didn't go through the consent form and posts a picture of me, Facebook will use that for their AI

If a friend of mine didn't go through the consent form and posts information about me, Facebook will use that for their AI

> Again, that's lawyer for covering arses.

Lawyers explicitly covering their asses would not even allow opt in by default, and statements like "we're still using your data even if you opt out".

[KaiserPro]

So here in GDPR land, there is the concept of reasonableness.

Facebook are explicitly not allowed to farm for PII, so unless they have explicit consent, they can't scan for faces to reject people who have opted out. Plus, how do you hold a descriptor for someone who's opted out, because you're not allowed to hold any data on them?

Therefore its unreasonable for them to guarantee them they will never process your data when submitted by a third party.

You seem to be taking my comments as a pro-meta stance. Its very much not.

If you can design a way to stop people's data being processed when uploaded by a third party, I want in on that. lets start a movement to get it working.

[VeejayRampay]

people are just way too invested in the OpenAI hype and they don't want people threatening that in any way

[fullshark]

Nah they are just calling out shameless corporate bullshit. OpenAI were bullshitters too re: promoting open source, but they are not even pretending anymore and once they change their governance structure the idea that they were ever promoting open source will be merely an amusing memory.