Why Mark Zuckerberg wants to redefine open source so badly

[phoenixz@lemmy.ca]

Looking at any picture of mark suckerberg makes you believe that they are very much ahead with AI and robotics.

Either way, fuck Facebook, stop trying to ruin everything good in the world.

[dilroopgill@lemmy.world]

I've seen quite a few that have restrictions based off your size, like if its 1-5 ppl no charge, anymore and the cost increases as you go up.

[bishbosh@lemm.ee]

water the tree of liberty? 🥰

[ripcord@lemmy.world]

Did you read the article?

[cyd@lemmy.world]

Aww come on. There's plenty to be mad at Zuckerberg about, but releasing Llama under a semi-permissive license was a massive gift to the world. It gave independent researchers access to a working LLM for the first time. Deepseek started out messing around with Llama derivatives back in the day (though, to be clear, their MIT-licensed V3 and R1 models are not Llama derivatives).

As for open training data, its a good ideal but I don't think it's a realistic possibility for any organization that wants to build a workable LLM. These things use trillions of documents in training, and no matter how hard you try to clean the data, there's definitely going to be something lawyers can find to sue you over. No organization is going to open themselves up to the liability. And if you gimp your data set, you get a dumb AI that nobody wants to use.

[buddascrayon@lemmy.world]

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

It is actually possible to reveal the source of training data without showing the data itself. But I think this is a bit deeper since I'll bet all of my teeth that the training data they've used is literally the 20 years of Facebook interactions and entries that they have just chilling on their servers. Literally 3+ billion people's lives are the training data.

[itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world]

Is it for control, money? Of course it is.

[xavier666@lemm.ee]

Luigi: Someone asked for cancer extermination?

[rageagainstmachines@lemmy.world]

Fuck off, Fuckerberg.

[foobarrington@lemmy.world]

I agree that we should incentivize open source work, but my worry is that by legitimizing partial open source as "open source", you're disincentivizing fully open source work. After all, why put in the effort if you'll get the same result with way less work?

The incentive you're asking for is a disincentive against full open source, and I can guarantee you that if the existing "open source" term wasn't defended by hardliners, there'd be far less open source work in the wild than we have today.