back
2 comments
So are they actually making the models open now or are they staying the course with "kind of open" as they have done for LLaMA 1, 2, and 3 [1]?

[1]: https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-ope...

As I have stated time and again, it is perfectly fine for them to slap on whatever license they see fit as it is their work. But it would be nice if they used appropriate terms so as not to disrupt the discourse further than they have already done. I have written several walls of text why I as a researcher find Facebook's behaviour problematic so I will fall back on an old link [2] this time rather than writing it all over again.

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38427832

> it is perfectly fine for them to slap on whatever license they see fit as it is their work.

Is it? Has there been a ruling on the enforceability of the license they attach to their models yet? Just because you say what you release can only be used for certain things doesn't actually mean what you say means anything.

> specifically, it puts restrictions on commercial use for some users (paragraph 2) and also restricts the use of the model and software for certain purposes (the Acceptable Use Policy)

It's "a Google and Apple can't use this model in production" clause that frankly we can all be relatively okay with.

Good, then we can expect them to call it what it is then? Not open source and not open science and a regression in terms of openness in relationship to what came before. Because that is precisely my objection. There are those of us that have been committed to those ideals for a long time and now one of the largest corporations on earth is appropriating those terms for marketing purposes.
I think it's great that you're fighting to maintain the term's fundamental meaning. I do, however, think that we need to give credit where credit is due to companies who take actions in the right direction to encourage more companies to do the same. If we blindly protest any positive-impact action by corporations for not being perfect, they'll get the hint and stop trying to appease the community entirely.
I am in agreement. However, I do believe that a large portion of the community here is also missing a key point: Facebook was more open five years ago with their AI research than they are today. I suspect this perspective is because of the massive influx of people into AI around the time of the ChatGPT release. From their point of view, Facebook's move (although dishonestly labelled as something it is not) is a step in the right direction relative to "Open"AI and others. While for us that have been around for longer, openness "peaked" around 2018 and has been in steady decline ever since. If you see the wall of text I linked in my first comment in this chain, there is a longer description of this historical perspective.

It should also be noted (again) that the value of the terms open science and open source comes from the sacrifices and efforts of numerous academic, commercial, personal, etc. actors over several decades. They "paid" by sticking to the principles of these movements and Facebook is now cashing in on their efforts; solely for their own benefit. Not even Microsoft back in 2001 in the age of "fear uncertainty and doubt" were so dishonest as to label the source-available portions of their Shared Source Initiative as something it was not. Facebook has been called out again and again since the release of LLaMA 1 (which in its paper appropriated the term "open") and have shown no willingness to reconsider their open science and open source misuse. At this point, I can no longer give them the benefit of the doubt. The best defence I have heard is that they seek to "define open in the 'age of AI'", but if that was the case, where is their consensus building efforts akin to what we have seen numerous academics and OSI carry out? No, sadly the only logical conclusion is that it is cynical marketing on their part, both from their academics and business people.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative

In short. I think the correct response to Facebook is: "Thank you for the weights, we appreciate it. However, please stop calling your actions and releases something they clearly are not."

Totally agree. Your suggested response is perfect IMO.
but it means your company cant be acquired by those giants, if you use this model.
I'm glad someone said it.

You're only ok with it if you're not interested in having maximum freedom of movement vis-a-vis any potential exits.

Meta the new "Open" AI?
Until they make model much better than competitors to actually start capitalizing on it