- cross-posted to:
- technology
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- technology
- [email protected]
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave Meta’s Llama team approval to train on copyrighted documents, according to a new court filing.
Case file: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.415175/gov.uscourts.cand.415175.376.0.pdf
Case file: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.415175/gov.uscourts.cand.415175.377.0_1.pdf
You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
So he is personally liable?
Of course not, he’s rich
Won’t the goverment step in and rid us of them. Force them to pay, so meta can give millions to reddit, getty and all the other data brokers and just keep doing it.
You guys are responding to openai propaganda. The open source scene dies if you can’t train freely. Meta was the first player to actual dump their stuff, even if it was just to fuck over Microsoft and Google.
I can train and run their model on my shit laptop, as well as the hundreds of fine tunes. I can talk dirty to an uncensored fine-tune which are explicitly banned on actual platforms. I can fine tune it on my own data or wtv else as I please.
Getting mad and giving the goverment green light to legislate for the benefit of copyright laws will fuck all of us. At least with an open source scene, you can turn around and compete against your boss if he ever fires you because you’re made redundant because of AI.
If only the companies able to afford the data can build models (and there’s like 3), you end with a soft monopoly with subscription models that can eventually actually replace people and are priced to be just low enough to make economic sense but way too high to afford on an unemployment cheque.
Llama is open source, so they should be allowed to train on public data if they’re going to release it to the public.
The problem is with them using non licensed data to train proprietary models, not models in general.
Llama is NOT open source. Read the license https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/LICENSE.
Well, the licence tries to prohibit people doing various things with it, but the model is open weights. Anyone can physically run it on their hardware, not something they can do with ChatGPT or Claude for example. You’re right, I shouldn’t have implied it was fully open source, but at least it only tries to legally, rather than physically, prevent people running and modifying the model themselves.
That’s not what open source means
You’re right, I shouldn’t have implied it was fully open source
Friendly reminder that
- there is no official/real definition of open source
- the definition you probably mean is hillariously silly. There’s one project that is pretty big and well-receifed in the community but isn’t open source according to them because it contains the paragraph “don’t do evil” in its license.
So yeah, take that how you want.
Huh? Open source has a definition. It means the source is accessible and one can build the software themself. I think you might be mixing up open source and FOSS (which does have to do with licenses).
If it were open source, I would be able to freely build it from source files on my own machine.
Open source != freeware
