menzoic

This couldn't happen if the transactions were on a blockchain

Thought it was a joke at first, then I realized it’s viable

In the US I learned about CNF in 2006 and a lot of related things such as specialization of different brain areas and the stomach having sort of a brain that affects you emotionally

You can always fine tune a generalist model to get better results

>There's a philosophy of open source based on recipients being able to make any small and large modifications to the source material as they see fit.

The reason I see it as a strawman is because the weights are the source of the AI model and they do allow you to modify the model however you please.

The data is not owned by Meta, they can’t release it and it’s not required to use or modify the model. This is like wanting a team to release the research that informed product development with their source.

The data and training code are not the same as the AI model itself. This is not the same as code that produces a binary, this is more like code that produces another form of code.

If you try to replicate the model you won’t be able to because the process is not deterministic. There’s no reason to replicate the model, you would fine tune it instead.

> It's only open source if you can generate the binary weights from the training data and the training algorithm and training (hyper) parameters, from scratch. Releasing only the binary weights, does not make it open source, just like releasing only binary executables has nothing to do with open source.

The weights aren’t binary. It’s not a compile form, it’s the actual source of the AI model.

The same code used to train the model / generate the weights will not produce the same model weights if run again, it is not deterministic.

Also you will need millions of dollars to retrain, retraining is not the goal. The model weights are the source that was opened. The weights can be used to modify the model.

> You demonstrably don't understand what open source means, which is basically my point, that people like Lecun have been trying to corrupt the meaning to be equivalent to "source available".

You demonstrably don’t understand what it means to open source an AI model. The code is not relevant at all, the same code will not produce the same model weights, it is not deterministic.

Also you will need millions of dollars to retrain, retraining is not the goal. The model weights are the source that was opened.

>to make the code useful you need data and that data might be free but not open sourced under any license

To use something like Meta’s open sourced LLAMA2 model you don’t need the data. The model is self contained. It’s a compressed lossy form of all the data it was trained on.

The weights allow you to continue its training with new data of your choosing.

> Releasing the trained model does not make it open source.

This is a straw man argument as Meta has released the model weights and not just the trained model. When it comes to models the weights are the source.

LLAMA2 is very much open source. You can use it for commercial purposes. The license only restricts companies that have more than 700M monthly active users from using it.

I wonder if using GPT-4 vision api would make moderating Omegle significantly cheaper and automated. AI could save the company.

This is assuming you’re using a really big LLM behind a paid service. There are plenty of smaller open source models. Not sure at what point it’s not “large” but when fine tuned they are capable of matching the largest LLM in performance on narrow tasks.

Some of these open source models can even be run on your local machine. It’d be very inexpensive to run thousands of pages through it.

https://llm-leaderboard.streamlit.app/

I think by everyone they meant everyone involved in the contract being signed

You also missed it. There will be varying accounts, but history written by the “bad guys” will frame things differently to make them seem like the good guys.

This reminds me of data extensions at Uber https://www.uber.com/blog/microservice-architecture/

Coupling to context?

> Despite the tremendous success, existing machine learning models still fall short of human-like systematic generalization

Keep in mind paper was published before ChatGPT was released

Pretty ridiculous idea. Bad actors simply won't use their platform if this was in place. It would only be scanning private data from all people who aren't comitting crimes.

Use code interpreter to upload your files and prompt it to ask you a serires of questions to know what to do next

I don't get why they resorted to the timing approach when they could just check the error message.

This is very common at Uber and Airbnb

What are the reasons to continue using SQLite over MySQL/MariaDB when you start to require distributed architectures? Wouldn't it be better to switch at that point? Assuming that being able to read from a database on the same filesystem as the application doesn't provide any tangible benefits for 99.99% of applications that don't have such low latency requirements?

It's open source. It can be removed directly from the code.

You are correct. The pricing model guarantees this. Pay per compute vs pay for uptime (during which you could have more compute for cheaper)

the article says everyone shouted 12 not Three

> No other generation in history has had such an opportunity.

I'm a milllenial that learned how to code at 14 using the internet. To be fair to your point about "free" I did use pirated software and a few pirated video courses

You don't need to use a device. You can use a User-Agent header to make it look like a real device and use a proxy with an IP that a normal user would use

This reminds me of the flash sites

Pretty good quote!

Its not about making money, its about opening up the tech to the public (including source, weights...etc)