mesebrec

Llama's license explicitly disallows its usage in the EU.

If that doesn't even meet the threshold for "terrible", then what does?

The video is currently private: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LxDM8io4lUA

Indeed, this is something they changed in the 3.1 version of the license.

Regardless, the license [1] still has many restrictions, such as the acceptable use policy [2].

[1] https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Meta-Llama-3.1-8B/blob/mai...

[2] https://llama.meta.com/llama3_1/use-policy

This is like saying any python program is open source because the python runtime is open source.

Inference code is the runtime; the code that runs the model. Not the model itself.

Regardless of the training data, the license even heavily restricts how you can use the model.

Please read through their "acceptable use" policy before you decide whether this is really in line with open source.

Open source requires, at the very least, that you can use it for any purpose. This is not the case with Llama.

The Llama license has a lot of restrictions, based on user base size, type of use, etc.

For example you're not allowed to use Llama to train or improve other models.

But it goes much further than that. The government of India can't use Llama because they're too large. Sex workers are not allowed to use Llama due to the acceptable use policy of the license. Then there is also the vague language probibiting discrimination, racism etc.. good luck getting something like that approved by your legal team.

You also can't use it for training or improving other models.

You also can't use it if you're the government of India.

Neither can sex workers use it. (Do you know if your customers are sex workers?)

There are also very vague restrictions for things like discrimination, racism etc.

Indeed, fine-tuning is still possible, but you can only go so far with fine-tuning before you need to completely retrain the model.

This is why Silo AI, for example, had to start from scratch to get better support for small European languages.

Without Meta, you would still have Mistral, Silo AI, and the many other companies and labs producing much more open models with similar performance.

Note that Meta's models are not open source in any interpretation of the term.

* You can't use them for any purpose. For example, the license prohibits using these models to train other models. * You can't meaningfully modify them given there is almost no information available about the training data, how they were trained, or how the training data was processed.

As such, the model itself is not available under an open source license and the AI does not comply with the "open source AI" definition by OSI.

It's an utter disgrace for Meta to write such a blogpost patting themselves on the back while lying about how open these models are.

Oh, wow, I came here for the same thing. The tone of the post got more and more annoying as it progressed.

Posting quotes from reddit as if they're intellectual discussions was a red flag, but this specific statement was just too much to ignore.

Although I work on Linux almost daily, I'm happy to say it's possible to simply avoid those kinds of people. Fostering a healthy environment where people can discuss and disagree respectfully is incredibly important for volunteer-led projects like Linux distributions.

> On the third hand, I can't deny some amount of schadenfreude looking at Apple having to deal with the same "do the work first, we'll judge if it meets our review standard afterwards" treatment as they do to developers.

That's not really how the process was supposed to work. Apple has had a lot of discussions with the EC over the past year about this law and its implementation.

This is common and the goal is to help the company figure out how to implement it.

However, from the EU side, it seemed as if Apple completely misunderstood what the discussions with the EU were for.

Apple was mainly focused on trying to lobby against all restrictions, not realizing the EU already made up their mind. The EU was trying to prepare Apple, but instead Apple dragged their feet, remained in denial, and were then suddenly surprised that yes, indeed, they really can't lobby their way out of compliance.

The reasoning is that apple's marketplace is such a central cornerstone to digital life that it becomes a public resource.

When thinking about what governance structure to use for our hackerspace, we thought about RFCs for a bit, but I'm glad we went with something different.

RFCs give way too much power to people who like to argue. This quickly kills enthousiasm in people proposing change.

Have you tried the latest version of OnlyOffice?

You are creating a strawman.

The original argument is not "they created encryption that isn't broken before". The argument is "encryption created by competitions that are only refereed by NIST is trustworthy"

Don't quote me on this but I think the limiting factor is that gravitational pull needs to be stronger than the expansion of the universe.

Stars are formed when clouds of gas and dust collapse into themselves.

Either the cloud is big and dense enough to collapse into a star, or it will remain as a cloud.

Our Jupiter was created when, during the collapse, other forces pulled part of the collapsing cloud away from the sun, into a stable orbit.

> Stars form when the dust and gas clouds in a nebula cool, progressively fragment and eventually collapse under their own gravity. The smallest stars are about 80 Jupiter masses, below which the core is not dense enough to fuse hydrogen, but smaller objects can coalesce through the same process, including dimly glowing brown dwarfs – sometimes called failed stars – and, below about 13 Jupiter masses, planetary-mass objects. But theoretical predications suggest that the lower boundary for an object forming through a star-like gravitational collapse is about three to seven Jupiter masses.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/oct/02/jumbos-jupit...

Interesting how rebuilding the support from the ground up allowed them to find a bug in the existing implementation. It really speaks to the quality of Asahi's work, imo.

The original decision to move was discussed previously here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27674413

It seems the practical implementation of the deal has started, with EdX notifying all their users when you log in.

I just want to point out how efficient your last sentence is in deflecting criticism about him.

You start with a strawman: "people dislike him because of his delivery instead of his message". This way you immediately dismiss critics of him as "focussing on the tone instead of the content".

But if that didn't convince the reader, you immediately follow up with an argument against people who dislike the content, by saying that flaws in content also don't really matter as long as he's more than 50% right.

I've never really understood why the internet at large uses BGP instead of more advanced protocols like OSPF.

This is a strawman argument. You're misrepresenting the pushback and then argue against that misrepresentation.

A large part of the pushback can be summerized as such: "Google created a technology that is incompatible with the open web. Now they want browsers to change their behavior to solve some of the ways this breaks the web."

Google is the only company that can get away with this, due to their incredible market share in browser, mobile and web. Browser vendors serve as the gatekeepers deciding what the operating space is for web developers. As a result, web developers can't fundamentally change how the web works, for better or for worse. Google can, and did, and is now cleaning up the mess this left behind.

The entire argument comes down to whether you think AMP is a good or a bad thing. Either you believe it's good, and you believe browsers should change to make it work, or you believe it's bad, and it's a problem that google has so much leverage to push this tech onto us.

Where does it say this is CC-BY-NC?

The article says this:

> Our audio research framework and training code is released under the MIT license to enable the broader community to reproduce and build on top of our work