Kinda funny how when mega corps can benefit from the millions upon millions of developer hours that they’re not paying for they’re all for open source. But when the mega corps have to ante up (with massive hardware purchases out of reach of any of said developers) they’re suddenly less excited about sharing their work.
Why Mark Zuckerberg wants to redefine open source so badly
Submitted 4 weeks ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.zdnet.com/article/why-mark-zuckerberg-wants-to-redefine-open-source-so-badly/
Comments
will_a113@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks ago
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.
msage@programming.dev 4 weeks ago
I’m begging for far less, like 0.001%.
Very much unsuccessful so far.
3aqn5k6ryk@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I dont give a fuck what you want mark. nobody is. what i want is for you to fuck off.
fuzzy_feeling@programming.dev 4 weeks ago
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 problemi’m not deep into ai, so correct me if i’m wrong.
airglow@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Software licenses that “discriminate against any person or group of persons” or “restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor” are not open source. Llama’s license doesn’t just restrict Llama from being used by companies with “700 million monthly active users”, it also restricts Llama from being used to “create, train, fine tune, or otherwise improve an AI model” or being used for military use (although Meta made an exception for the US military). Therefore, Llama is not open source.
Syntha@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources
So as I understand it, under the OSI definition of the word, anything distributed under a copyleft licence would not be open source.
So all software with GNU GPL, for example.
latenightnoir@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Because he’s an insecure and greedy child.
Theoriginalthon@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I think the licence type he is looking for is shareware
Kompressor@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
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
kava@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
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
jacksilver@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
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.
WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
The OSI’s definition actually tackles this pretty well:
Sufficient information as to the source of the data so that one could potentially go out and to retrieve it, and recreate the model, is sufficient to fall within the OSAI definition.
FooBarrington@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
when the data used to train the AI is copyrighted, how do you make it open source?
When part of my code base belongs to someone else, how do I make it open source? By open sourcing the parts that belong to me, while clarifying that it’s only partially open source.
buddascrayon@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
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.
SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
I don’t get it. What would they redefine it to?
Evotech@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Ask “OpenAI”
ripcord@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Did you read the article?
rageagainstmachines@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Fuck off, Fuckerberg.
cyd@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
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.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
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.
boaratio@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Because he’s a massive douche?
paraphrand@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
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.
conc@lemmy.ml 4 weeks ago
I have some Aladeen news for you my friend
HawlSera@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
Money
bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks ago
What are we going to do with the colonisers?
bishbosh@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
water the tree of liberty? 🥰
dilroopgill@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
No open source license type where corporations still have to pay?
airglow@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
If you are referring to licenses that prohibit commercial use or prevent certain types of users from using the software, those licenses are not open source because they “discriminate against any person or group of persons”.
FooBarrington@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
No, because that would no longer be open in the open source sense.
It’s either open for everyone, or it isn’t open.
Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Is it for control, money? Of course it is.
Ulrich@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
Money? Is it money? reads article
Shocking.
LillyPip@lemmy.ca 4 weeks ago
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.
chuckleslord@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
I mean, didn’t he famously steal the idea?
horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
We’re trying! You didn’t know Karla when you were there did you? She had the best stories about Spain.
manucode@infosec.pub 4 weeks ago
And avoiding regulation
NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Well yeah, because following regulations has an impact on the bottom line.
Exec@pawb.social 4 weeks ago
One is in direct relation with the other
don@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
The time it took me to reach this conclusion, after seeing the headline, is measured in quectoseconds.
baronvonj@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
That’s alotl seconds!