The White House on why Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t invited to its A.I. summit

Re:The White House on why Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t invited to ... by rvz on Friday May 05, 2023 @03:29PM (#35834050)

It would be a mistake to rule out Meta in the AI race, all because of the current LLM chatbot hype, the same reason why almost no-one bought its stock when it was send to less than $90. Now it is up over 110%.

You wouldn't get a flurry of open source LLMs everywhere had it not been for LLaMa by Meta.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The White House on why Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t invited to ... by vivegi on Friday May 05, 2023 @04:28PM (#35834751)

Except that the LLaMa model public release was involuntary (except for the research carveout); So, I am hesitant to give Meta credit for that while as they are also issuing takedowns.

Nevertheless, they are doing fundamental AI work. We can give them that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The White House on why Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t invited to ... by xg15 on Friday May 05, 2023 @06:20PM (#35835800)

Credit for the LLaMa derivatives (Alpaca, Vicuna etc) or for the base model? I don't see why they wouldn't deserve credit for the base model.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The White House on why Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t invited to ... by vivegi on Saturday May 06, 2023 @03:34AM (#35839100)

No dispute on crediting Meta for LLaMa itself.

I dispute crediting Meta for the widespread interest in LLMs. IMO, that would be Google (for Transformers, BERT), OpenAI (for GPT-2, GPT-3). BERT and GPT-2 were released under Apache 2.0 and MIT licenses respectively and precede the release of LLaMa.

Of course, we can credit ChatGPT for bringing it to the forefront of public consciousness.

And none of this takes away from Meta's work on LLaMa. I had said as much in my original comment.

[ Parent | on HN ]