upvote
It’s hard to know in retrospect what was strategy and what was dumb luck. This was in the midst of hysterical calls to limit access by “AI researchers” and safety/ethics types, when very facile takes still has a lot of sway (I think we’ll feel the same in three years about the current Fable stuff). It may have been hard for Meta to just release it outright.

What ended up happening was fairly limited gating followed by a “leaked” magnet link and llama.cpp which really brought a whole revolution in open use and changed the conversation completely.

I have no idea what role Meta played here, it may have been nothing, but they certainly could have been more guarded if they were really worried about the leak. The result was a big change in the trajectory of personal and open source AI use and even the dialog about it. Whatever the exact intentions, they were a key player.

reply
Meta saw the grave premonitions from ai firms as a means of edging out legacy firms through regulatory capture.
reply
I don’t understand how you can look at what’s happening right now and call people simply calling for caution “hysterical”
reply
Not to be coy, but what is happening right now?

You definitely have some scams and some software flaws being exposed, but I think for a revolutionary leap in tech this is all quite muted. Revolutionary tech advances often come with some severe consequences. For instance, to this day (after a century of safety improvements) cars still kill more than a million people a year, to say nothing of wrecking the atmosphere, but that's considered a reasonable price to pay for being able to get between places faster.

The reason I think cars are a good example is because that's certainly vastly higher than any price we're paying for LLMs, or probably ever will, yet the overall 'positive' effect of LLMs will likely be far greater than cars. Gotta put 'positive' in quotes because the possibility for automation and the like is going to be.... nuanced.... in effect, but at least in the longrun it'll be a very good thing.

reply
> what is happening right now?

I assume they are referring to LLMs escaping confinement and hacking other companies systems unprompted

> considered a reasonable price to pay

That's not a universal opinion and perhaps, just like for LLMs, we should have listened to the experts rather than gobbling up everything the industry pushed down our throats (to keep your car simile: SUVs are now ubiqutous in all European cities, there is no logical reason that should be the case)

reply
Thats like, your opinion man...

I don't know a single white collar person who isn't worried for their job with llms. Every. Single. One. Lawyers, doctors, any type of office workers I ask. The definition of white collar. Plus don't let me start on various automatable blue collar jobs like drivers, warehouse workers and so on.

What do we get in return? Better search (for now, its already getting riddled with ads which by definition twist truth to highest bidder), some questionable psychotherapist for some desperate folks. What else? Cars are not flying, heck they are not even driving autonomously in any usable way, society is in deep shit everywhere I look, wars, environment reaching bad places and heading for worse, mentally unstable people holding way too much power, destroying lives of millions on morning whims.

Everybody feels like this is the revolution, it should be, it must be right just look at the numbers. Like proverbial guy with hammer, a very shiny cool hammer, looking for what to do with it. We all saw how sociopathic management in more harsh/capitalistic companies looks for any sign to let people go en masse.

I could go on for a long time. There is a lot of things to hate for most people, and very few to be happy for. It seems llms have the ability to get the best and worst out of humans, and worst part seems to be in abundance. Some revolution that is, 0.1% will get richer while everybody else the opposite and 1984 seems milder and milder version of reality out there.

reply
<< It seems llms have the ability to get the best and worst out of humans

I think I can agree with that. Technology does seem to have a way of crystallizing our worst tendencies.

<< Everybody feels like this is the revolution

I smiled at the analogy, but I would caution you to not trivialize it. There is a reason executives are pushing that point. There is enough of a revolution in it to make things complicated -- as if it was not already.

<< destroying lives of millions on morning whims.

True, but I am not quite certain what can be done about it at a personal level.

<< I don't know a single white collar person who isn't worried for their job with llms.

Dunno. Next few years are probably going to be fine. Society managers likely can't upend everything in one go. They would lose too much. I can't say that I am worried exactly. I can see the potential impact, but I think the potential benefits are worth it as long as we don't limit it to summarizing emails..

reply
I don't think you can characterize the discussion around then as simple calling for caution. There was a serious attempt to keep all access to even very basic LLM techniques locked into essentially an exclusive guild.
reply
deleted
reply
If you grab the most extreme examples you can argue anything. The general feeling was “exercise caution” and “we need to think about this.”
reply
Oh stop, the current crop of kneecapping llms is already bad enough with how they cripple those. It would have been even worse if the 'we need to think about this' crowd kept the reins. At least now, we can have both: safe corporate crap and whatever you want llm.
reply
Did you know that if trains or cars go over 30 mph, it's disastrous for public health? Not from accidents. Just trauma from (ahem) acceleration:

https://illuminatingfacts.com/the-train-speed-panic-why-peop...

Reason that hysteria remains apropos now is that then, and now, we're figuring out how to deal with something beyond merely incremental change.

Irony is roads and sidewalks should have changed much more. We never did get around to good controls leading to zero deaths*, we decided a 100 people dead per day is a reasonable cost of convenience.

How much do our cyber traffic and cyber pedestrian controls need to change for everyman to get to drive AI? Car seats? Seatbelts? Air bags? Speed limiters? Pedestrian only living spaces? Driverless cars?

Many practical responses, likely a mix of things we haven't thought of yet, just as horses and horse drawn carriages didn't require most of them to coexist. Controls develop like scar tissue more naturally than they appear in advance.**

And if the better analogy for LLMs turns out to have been less like cars, more like flammable gas blimps, we'll figure that out too and tell cautionary stories for generations... but long before the stories are forgotten we'll have already come up with something more practical, faster, and – oh well – perhaps even deadlier per mile.

---

* Still working on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero

** Not saying that's as it should be.

reply
I don't agree with laughing at these things. It's a fine line between calling something hysteria and suffering from hubris. The Titanic is a completely inverse case of hysteria. They were so damn confident it could work that it didn't work at all. So yea, just laughing at dumb people isn't a valid argument to dismiss doubts.

On the other hand some kinds of hysteria occurs due to a divide between the public and subject matter experts on topics. Kind of like Dunning Kruger. Take for example the people saying 5G causes cancer. Then there are people who blanket dismiss their worries, because "it's non ionizing you dummy". Given sufficient power you can still fry someone with non ionizing radiation, for example in radio broadcasts. Of course a regular 5g antenna can't put out that kind of power but my point is that people too quickly raise or dismiss concerns without actually critically examining the entire topic. This will likely worsen from specialization and progress in all fields and regular Joes get left further and further behind.

reply
You lost me when you said trains and cars shouldn’t go over 30mph. Lol, this sounds like Amish propaganda. Go buy your horse and buggy
reply
Another dry sarcasm victim. If you check the link, it’s clear they were talking about a supposed contemporary concern about health effects from trains, the implication being that today people are also irrationally afraid of tech.

Problem is I’m fairly sure the link is wildly overstating its case, and looks like a content farm. Might even be, ironically, AI slop itself! For example, it talks about “railway spine”: “Physicians of the time believed that the jarring motion and vibrations of train travel could shatter the nervous system, causing lasting mental and emotional distress.”

This is bullshit. As just one example of the low trustworthiness of the “article”, railway spine was the result of a train crash, a notably traumatic event, and the symptoms described are in part just PTSD, a real condition and a real concern (not normal rail travel). For that matter railway travel in those days was genuinely unpleasant (lots of vibrations and jarring movement, poorly ventilated cars, and so on) which ironically modern science would probably validate as being some kind of health risk.

I’d actually view the listed example of train paranoia a great example of historical ignorance. People of the past were not stupid, contrary to popular belief. History has some genuine examples of silly hysteria, but these are usually the exception not the rule.

reply
A common belief right now in the US military is that even the blast of a high caliber ammunition round may scramble your brain and give you "PTSD".

It does line up with "PTSD" only becoming a thing after WWI.

reply
Because when you position yourself saying "people were hysterical", you indirectly categorize yourself as an expert.
reply
> what’s happening right now

And that would be closed-AI companies failing to keep their AI closed in a box, thus proving open-AI proponents right and the hysterical group wrong?

reply
deleted
reply
> The reason why llama is open source

Llama has never been open source. It's source-available, but still proprietary, under terms that (among other things) say "no competing with us, you have to buy a license for that".

reply
If you read the license, you'd realize that Llama has restrictions incompatible with the definition of Open Source.

https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-license-is-still-not...

reply
There is no source available. Its just open weights.
reply
"open source" doesn't even make much sense for a model. But llama isn't even fully open weights due to the restrictions on its use.
reply
the "albeit" gives away that the person you're responding to intended to write "unintentionally" ... #readingcomprehension
reply
Why do you think they continued to do it?

Ps: I work for meta, but not in AI related orgs.

reply
Because it took off. All of a sudden they captured more customers than they could have imagined they would have, and throwing away the lead they unintentionally gave themselves (in terms of usage and mindshare) would have undone all of that and more.
reply
Customers or just consumers?
reply
I've worked long enough at large tech giants to know how things really are. Also a large part of the reason why I'd never join one again, no matter what they have to offer. Meta, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Openai, anthropic, oracle, nvidia, Microsoft, etc. - same shit with a different badge on top.
reply
TBH, having worked at all big-tech, startup and mid-sized companies, pretty much most has some major pros and cons of their own, and these days ever more so. With certain big-tech at-least there some chance of getting decent WLB.
reply
I don’t think Nvidia fits on that list. It’s a company with a pro-employee culture, very few layoffs, and many employees who have been there a long time.
reply
My dad used to say "It's easy to be generous and kind when things are going well for you. You can only tell what a man is worth during hard times". Nvidia is at it's high financially. When shit hits the fan, things will start looking very differently. You only have to look at what kind of people Jensen is bffs with.
reply
It is also a company with a terrible history regarding open-source. AMD is much better from every point of view.
reply
NVIDIA created quality (but proprietary) drivers for Linux early on, when supporting Linux at all was not a given. They should get at least a tiny bit of credit for this.
reply
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. They’ve all but abandoned these so called quality drivers since, so no, no credit is deserved.
reply
Unless it's a 24 hour clock. Then only once.
reply
What OS and whose drivers are running on all these NVIDIA-equipped computers today?
reply
deleted
reply
It’s obvious? They still hate us and hope we die… at least every movement they make seems like that.

I kid. I’m all for meta releasing more open weight models.

I mean… I’m also 1000% certain that China is going to undercut whatever they can do if even not a technology reason but a legal reason. I’ve seen some wild stuff posted that has been made with Minimax… things a US company could never allow to happen.

reply
>wild stuff posted that has been made with Minimax… things a US company could never allow to happen.

Such as?

reply
Minimax has NO filters of any kind, and it's roughly Veo/Sora-quality.

You can generate a video of just about any thought in your head at all.

IP holders and politicians will not like that.

Granted, human artists have always been capable of this. It's just never been worth it to bring most ideas into fruition. Now there's minimal cost to do so.

Early Sora, Grok Imagine, and Seedance 2.0 had few filters. Disney, Nintendo, et al. eventually stopped them all from using their IP, which made the appeal fade for a lot of users.

Kling and Nano Banana can still generate IP oddly enough.

reply
> The reason why llama is open source is simply because it got leaked

It arguably didn't really get leaked, and they had the .edu req mainly for fair use education exemption when legality of models was much more uncertain.

reply