Wait a minute. I'm no Meta fan, but that leak wasn't internal. llama released their weights to researchers first. The leak was from the initial batch of users, not from inside of Meta. iirc, the model was never meant to be closed weight.
I agree
How can the previous comment be on hacker news ?
Every one here has followed the llama release saga. The famous cheeky PR on their GitHub with the torrent link was genius comedy.
This might make sense for explaining n=1 releases of Llama being open weight. Even OpenAI started with open weight models and moved to closed weight though, so why would this have forever locked Meta into releasing all models as open weight and across so many model families if they weren't really interested in that path as a strategy in its own right?
Sure, but people have the right to ask questions, as for example Zuck's pledge to give away 99% which people pointed out might be a tax avoidance scheme
The retort was essentially "Can't you just be nice?" but people have the right to ask questions; sometimes the questions reveal much corruption that actually does go on
I think it is valid to question why he'd be giving away 99% of his fortune, because let's be honest, Zuck has not proven that he is trustworthy. But at the same time, he could just... Not donate that much.
Yes, the 99% did NOT go straight into non-profits, instead being funneled into his foundation, which has donated millions into actual charitable organizations, but that's arguably millions that wouldn't have otherwise gone to those orgs.
Is it a bit disingenuous to say he's donating 99% of his wealth when his foundation has only donated a few hundred million (or few billion?), which is a single percent of his wealth? Yeah, probably. But a few billion is more than zero, and is undeniably helpful to those organizations.
Meta took the open path because their initial foray into AI was compromised so they have been doing their best to kneecap everyone else since then.
I like the result but let’s not pretend it’s for gracious intent.