If that doesn't even meet the threshold for "terrible", then what does?

Regardless, the license [1] still has many restrictions, such as the acceptable use policy [2].

[1] https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Meta-Llama-3.1-8B/blob/mai...

[2] https://llama.meta.com/llama3_1/use-policy

Inference code is the runtime; the code that runs the model. Not the model itself.

Please read through their "acceptable use" policy before you decide whether this is really in line with open source.

The Llama license has a lot of restrictions, based on user base size, type of use, etc.

For example you're not allowed to use Llama to train or improve other models.

But it goes much further than that. The government of India can't use Llama because they're too large. Sex workers are not allowed to use Llama due to the acceptable use policy of the license. Then there is also the vague language probibiting discrimination, racism etc.. good luck getting something like that approved by your legal team.

You also can't use it if you're the government of India.

Neither can sex workers use it. (Do you know if your customers are sex workers?)

There are also very vague restrictions for things like discrimination, racism etc.

This is why Silo AI, for example, had to start from scratch to get better support for small European languages.

* You can't use them for any purpose. For example, the license prohibits using these models to train other models. * You can't meaningfully modify them given there is almost no information available about the training data, how they were trained, or how the training data was processed.

As such, the model itself is not available under an open source license and the AI does not comply with the "open source AI" definition by OSI.

It's an utter disgrace for Meta to write such a blogpost patting themselves on the back while lying about how open these models are.

Posting quotes from reddit as if they're intellectual discussions was a red flag, but this specific statement was just too much to ignore.

Although I work on Linux almost daily, I'm happy to say it's possible to simply avoid those kinds of people. Fostering a healthy environment where people can discuss and disagree respectfully is incredibly important for volunteer-led projects like Linux distributions.

That's not really how the process was supposed to work. Apple has had a lot of discussions with the EC over the past year about this law and its implementation.

This is common and the goal is to help the company figure out how to implement it.

However, from the EU side, it seemed as if Apple completely misunderstood what the discussions with the EU were for.

Apple was mainly focused on trying to lobby against all restrictions, not realizing the EU already made up their mind. The EU was trying to prepare Apple, but instead Apple dragged their feet, remained in denial, and were then suddenly surprised that yes, indeed, they really can't lobby their way out of compliance.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40684058

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39480406

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

RFCs give way too much power to people who like to argue. This quickly kills enthousiasm in people proposing change.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38494218

Points: 5

# Comments: 1

The original argument is not "they created encryption that isn't broken before". The argument is "encryption created by competitions that are only refereed by NIST is trustworthy"