Hacker News Reader

Comment by cush | Hacker News Reader

It might be true if it wasn't coming from Meta, but it is coming from Meta. Intelligence is a function of the model and compute. Meta has the capital required to put together world-class compute, but they can't attract the talent required to build world-class models. Given their history of building addictive software to harvest and sell user data for profit, they're the last company we need spearheading how models should be regulated. Nobody trusts Meta to do this.

View on HN

Sure you can doubt the motivation of the speaker, but remember the validity of the argument itself is orthogonal to the speaker’s identity.

No it absolutely is not. In a perfectly logical frictioness-plane world it might be true, but this is the real world. The entire premise of open models is predicated on the fact that Meta is planning on supplying free and equitable inference and services around it. It’s only true if you assume Meta keeps their end of the deal and doesn’t do the thing they’ve been doing over and over and over for decades and turning you into the product

Its perfectly valid to question the intent though. Yes, open models are great. Why does Meta prefer that? Because they lost the race to the top, so they'd rather level the playing field by eliminating the game entirely.

> the validity of the argument itself is orthogonal to the speaker’s identity.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? Are you actually the Big Bad Wolf? That sounds like something the Big Bad Wolf would say.

using an ad hominem to attack the concept of ad hominem lol

That’s the joke, friend.

The idea that we can possibly ignore the fact that this push for opening AI models is being pushed by one of the richest people on the planet, who made his wealth by providing free services in exchange for attention and depression, is insane

How should one parse both the validity of an argument and the agenda of the speaker?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com