One possible hypothesis here is Meta just loves open source and wants everyone to flourish. … A more complex hypothesis is Meta doesn’t actually love open source that much but has a sensible, self-interested strategy
It’s worth noting here that Meta is very careful never to describe Llama as open source, because they know perfectly well that it isn’t. For example, here’s video of Yan LeCun testifying under oath: “so first of all Llama system was not made open source … we released it in a way that did not authorize commercial use, we kind of vetted the people who could download the model it was reserved to researchers and academics”
The distinction is irrelevant for misuse by bad actors, such as terrorist groups. The model weights were on the dark net very quickly after the supposedly controlled release.
Agreed: this kind of psudeo-openness has all of the downsides of releasing a dual-use capability, and we miss so many benefits from commercial use and innovation.
It’s worth noting here that Meta is very careful never to describe Llama as open source, because they know perfectly well that it isn’t. For example, here’s video of Yan LeCun testifying under oath: “so first of all Llama system was not made open source … we released it in a way that did not authorize commercial use, we kind of vetted the people who could download the model it was reserved to researchers and academics”
Worth noting about your note:
The distinction is irrelevant for misuse by bad actors, such as terrorist groups. The model weights were on the dark net very quickly after the supposedly controlled release.
Agreed: this kind of psudeo-openness has all of the downsides of releasing a dual-use capability, and we miss so many benefits from commercial use and innovation.