Why Mark Zuckerberg wants to redefine open source so badly

[don@lemm.ee]

Several thousand is a lot, sure.

[dilroopgill@lemmy.world]

No open source license type where corporations still have to pay?

[not_rick@lemmy.world]

Well yeah, because following regulations has an impact on the bottom line.

[kompressor@lemmy.world]

Desperately trying tap in to the general trust/safety feel that open source software typically has. Trying to muddy the waters because they’ve proven they cannot be trusted whatsoever

[fuzzy_feeling@programming.dev]

Meta's Llama models also impose licensing restrictions on its users. For example, if you have an extremely successful AI program that uses Llama code, you'll have to pay Meta to use it. That's not open source. Period.

open source != no license restrictions

According to Meta, "Existing open source definitions for software do not encompass the complexities of today's rapidly advancing AI models. We are committed to keep working with the industry on new definitions to serve everyone safely and responsibly within the AI community."

i think, he's got a point, tho

is ai open source, when the trainig data isn't?
as i understand, right now: yes, it's enough, that the code is open source. and i think that's a big problem

i'm not deep into ai, so correct me if i'm wrong.

[lillypip@lemmy.ca]

I taught myself programming in the 80s, then worked myself from waitress and line cook to programmer, UXD, and design lead to the point of being in the running for an Apple design award in the 2010s.

But I cared more than anything about making things FOR people. Making like easier. Making people happy. Making software that was a joy to use.

Then I got sick with something that’s neither curable nor easily manageable.

Now I’m destitute and have to choose between money and food, and I’m staring down homelessness.

Fuck these idiots who bought their way into nerd status (like Musk) or had one hot idea that took off and didn’t have to do anything after (this fucking guy). Hundreds or thousands of designers and programmers made these companies, and were tossed out like trash so a couple of people can be rock stars, making more per hour than most of us will see in a lifetime.

Slay the dragons.

[exec@pawb.social]

One is in direct relation with the other

[curious_canid@lemmy.ca]

Well, they have almost always circumvented them instead, but that impacts the bottom line too.

[horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world]

We're trying! You didn't know Karla when you were there did you? She had the best stories about Spain.

[not_rick@lemmy.world]

Yup, lawyers are expensive

[horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world]

A cancer does this also.

[lillypip@lemmy.ca]

I knew a Karla, but she was from Romania. Fantastic person. I miss her.

[paraphrand@lemmy.world]

If people could stop redefining words, that would go a long way to fixing our current strife.

Not a total solution, but it would clarify the discussion. I loathe people who redefine and weaponize words.

[cosmicturtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

I've been begging my company to commit to 1% of our revenue toward open source software we use.

It would be life changing for many of these devs.

[timesquirrel@kbin.melroy.org]

I don't think any of our classical open licenses from the 80s and 90s were ever created with AI in mind. They are inadequate. An update or new one is needed.

Stallman, spit out the toe cheese and get to work.

[chuckleslord@lemmy.world]

I mean, didn't he famously steal the idea?

[pastermil@sh.itjust.works]

How about a no.

[kava@lemmy.world]

when the data used to train the AI is copyrighted, how do you make it open source? it's a valid question.

one thing is the model or the code that trains the AI. the other thing is the data that produces the weights which determines how the model predicts

of course, the obligatory fuck meta and the zuck and all that but there is a legal conundrum here we need to address

[3aqn5k6ryk@lemmy.world]

I dont give a fuck what you want mark. nobody is. what i want is for you to fuck off.

[jacksilver@lemmy.world]

I mean, you can have open source weights, training data, and code/model architecture. If you've done all three it's an open model, otherwise you state open "component". Seems pretty straightforward to me.