(no title)
popinman322 | 1 year ago
Llama models are also still best in class for specific tasks that require local data processing. They also maintain positions in the top 25 of the lmarena leaderboard (for what that's worth these days with suspected gaming of the platform), which places them in competition with some of the best models in the world.
But, going back to my first point, Llama set the stage for almost all open weights models after. They spent millions on training runs whose artifacts will never see the light of day, testing theories that are too expensive for smaller players to contemplate exploring.
Pegging Llama as mediocre, or a waste of money (as implied elsewhere), feels incredibly myopic.
Philpax|1 year ago
That's not to say their work is unimpressive or not worthy - as you say, they've facilitated much of the open-source ecosystem and have been an enabling factor for many - but it's more that that work has been in making it accessible, not necessarily pushing the frontier of what's actually possible, and DeepSeek has shown us what's possible when you do the latter.
wiz21c|1 year ago
lvl155|1 year ago
sangnoir|1 year ago
I don't see how you can confidently say this when AI researchers and engineers are remunerated very well across the board and people are moving across companies all the time, if the plan is as you described it, it is clearly not working.
Zuckerberg seems confident they'll have an AI-equivalent of a mid-level engineer later this year, can you imagine how much money Meta can save by replacing a fraction of its (well-paid) engineers with fixed Capex + electric bill?
yodsanklai|1 year ago
Does it mean they are mediocre? it's not like OpenAI or Anthropic pay their engineers peanuts. Competition is fierce to attract top talents.
oezi|1 year ago
Rather with AI, capitalism seems working at its best with competitors to OpenAI building solutions which take market share and improve products. Zuck can try monopoly plays all day, but I don't think this will work this time.