• fuzzy_feeling
    link
    fedilink
    English
    369 hours ago

    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 problem

    i’m not deep into ai, so correct me if i’m wrong.

    • TimeSquirrel
      link
      fedilink
      65 hours ago

      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.