9 comments

  • ViktorRay 38 minutes ago
    Comments here are surprising to me.

    I get folks don’t like Zuckerberg and his company and don’t trust his intentions… I don’t either.

    But this is an unquestionably good thing right?. The more open source software out there the better. And the more open weights or even over source AI stuff the better too right? More competition the better generally speaking I think.

    Unless I’m missing something and am getting this whole situation wrong. Please let me know if I am.

    • kylecazar 32 minutes ago
      Most probably believe this is a good thing, but don't want to give Zuckerberg credit because a) he's had a profoundly negative impact on society and b) the strategy is transparent, he's trying to commoditize his closed rivals, it's not out of principle.

      I personally think more open models are a good thing regardless of motive.

    • A_D_E_P_T 28 minutes ago
      > But this is an unquestionably good thing right?

      Their efforts in open AI are by far the best thing Facebook/Meta have ever done. They opened the door to the Chinese, who are doing excellent work, and between them they are preventing the concentration of power and the rise of monopoly pricing. This is enough to absolve them of almost any sin. If I were a utilitarian, I'd unironically be a Zuckerberg fan right now.

      • lukan 2 minutes ago
        "This is enough to absolve them of almost any sin. If I were a utilitarian, I'd unironically be a Zuckerberg fan right now."

        Well, if it were the only thing he is doing now, but FB is still controlling peoples social life with who knows what kind of intentions they train their algorithms for.

        But I can and do still welcome this move here.

    • conception 30 minutes ago
      I think it’s perfectly fine to call out people who intentionally harm children for money out in public in every possible situation.
    • Yizahi 22 minutes ago
      In short - this is Mark deliberately lying in a way which requires a page of difficult text to explain, which hardly anyone would read and so Mark bets that a majority of the people who will see his claim will believe him.

      And the reason he does it, and the reason other CEOs do it is a cheap viral advertisement and keeping in the headlines. "Mark - The Defender Of The Humans!". Blegh...

  • forestrywat 1 hour ago
    Is this "I'm losing so I think we should change the rules"? Because it seems like that.
    • drob518 7 minutes ago
      It’s a long term pattern. When you’re winning (Anthropic), you keep the tech closed and try to monetize it as much as possible. When you’re losing (Meta), you open it up or drag it into a standards committee to either devalue it or slow the leader down while you prepare a “standard” version of it. You also highlight how altruistic and morally good you are for having done so. There is nothing new under the sun. It’s all a game.
    • sodapopcan 52 minutes ago
      Similar to Altman saying "we should slow down."
      • scotty79 14 minutes ago
        OpenAI is not losing though. Fable is barely available and barely cooperates. Sonnet 5 is obnoxious model that's terrible to work with. GPT-5.6-sol competently gets stuff done. Just be careful not to ask it for impossible stuff because you might not like the lengths it's gonna go to get them done regardless.
        • sodapopcan 11 minutes ago
          Not to American companies, he said this after the recent Chinese release (I can't keep up with model names... Kimi K...3?)
      • amarcheschi 47 minutes ago
        or musk a few years ago, pause ai training for 6 months (so we can catch up)
    • Yizahi 19 minutes ago
      That, and also redefining what a word "open" means, helps him avoid direct financial and criminal responsibility for stealing other people's data. Not that there was any real chance of that ever, but he is reducing that remaining 0.000000001% chance even lower.
    • RunSet 47 minutes ago
      "They 'trust me'. Dumb fucks."

      \- Mark Zuckerberg[0]

      [0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-fa...

    • lenerdenator 14 minutes ago
      Yeah? Everyone everywhere does that all the time. That's the first rule of business: try to game the system.

      And this time, it's actually somewhat understandable, as opposed to the other times Meta has done horrible things on Zuck's watch, like contributed to ethnic hatred in Myanmar, leaked data to political firms so that they can run psyops, or enabled the production of CSAM material on Meta's platforms.

  • moomin 37 minutes ago
    The truth is all frontier models are closed. This isn't even an open source vs open weights thing. Even if you accepted that open weights are "open" the capital requirements for running your own Kimi 3 model are significant. It's not like gcc, where the binary just works well enough on random hardware.
    • microtonal 15 minutes ago
      Even if I cannot run open weight models on my own hardware, I can choose from a number of different inference providers and choose them based on pricing, reliability, speed, privacy policy, etc. There is a healthy competition.

      Also, not a single provider can pull the rug if I'd like to use a particular model.

    • lumost 26 minutes ago
      There is no requirement to own the hardware. Even if you own your servers and GPUs - you would not own the power plant, real estate, or internet infrastructure to support it.

      It's trivial to rent all of the above components in a competitive market under different periods, you may simply rent the token output from someone who put in the effort on this as well.

      An open frontier model induces margin compression on training and inference prices across the industry.

    • rft 23 minutes ago
      I get that argument, but I don't think it is that bad. Open weights that are out of reach for local use are still within reach for groups of people or small to medium companies. Even if you only rent enough cloud GPUs to run the weights for a few hours, you still get to do anything you want with it.

      Worst case you can still archive the weights and hope for capable hardware to get affordable. At the same time this archive is the base line for a new frontier lab to start over if required. I see open weights as a pure upside even though I can't run the bigger models in my home lab.

    • InsideOutSanta 25 minutes ago
      This is like claiming that Linux isn't open because you don't have a PC. Models can be open-weight even if you don't have the hardware to run them.
    • A_D_E_P_T 30 minutes ago
      Deepseek V4 Flash works on consumer-grade hardware, and it's extremely good.
    • logicchains 3 minutes ago
      >the capital requirements for running your own Kimi 3 model are significant

      You don't need much capital up front, you can just rent servers to run it. It's going to be more expensive than openrouter though because you probably don't have economies of scale if you're the only customer.

    • scotty79 17 minutes ago
      If all frontier models got opensourced 5 months after they were made available as closed it would be a great world. And it is a great world because that's exactly what open weight Chinese models are doing. They give you same capacity that was closed, just 5 months after they were released.

      I'm hoping that all software will be getting opensource clones on par with original software 5 months after the closed source software release.

  • franze 8 minutes ago
    i was wondering why meta has such a hard time with llm development

    its the organisational goal of that endeavour

    they are doing it in a phase of firing people

    so the goal of llm at meta is "to make people redundant" and no matter of HR/PR speak can change it

    antrophic and openai have the goal "lets create the future"

    whomever they hire and no matter how much money they spend on it, the goal alone will create very different outcomes.

  • rufasterisco 1 hour ago
    https://archive.is/p1ehR

    The essay from Zuckerberg

    • root-parent 47 minutes ago
      Is going to take it one day at a time, on being a less evil bilionaire :-)

      "Zuckerberg faces questions over why superyacht reportedly declined to help stranded boat" - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/09/zuckerberg-s...

      • limagnolia 39 minutes ago
        Reading the facts of this incident, it seems like much to do about nothing. The crew are saying that the request came in on a frequency they weren't monitoring (and apparently were not required to monitor.) The Coast Guard determined it was not an emergency. The criticism lies with those who failed to properly fuel their boat, not the crew who didn't respond to a request that came over a frequency they were not on. They can't monitor every frequency. I am open to new facts being discovered that changes this assessment.
        • detourdog 31 minutes ago
          Where did you find these facts you read. In the USA a good Captain monitors VHF channel 16. This channel is used for establishing communication. To not monitor this channel is a dereliction of duty.

          I really doubt the USCG labeled a disabled vessel as a non-emergency. An immediate threat to life may not have existed but that is the difference between a pan pan and a mayday call.

          A disabled vessel close to land can easily wind up on the rocks and sinking.

    • sammyteee 1 hour ago
      God, it's a bit War and Peace...
    • antonmks 47 minutes ago
      So many em dashes...
      • wolttam 42 minutes ago
        There really wasn’t that many and this did not have the voice of written-by-an-LLM to me

        And they’re not em-dashes -- they’re double hyphens.

        • vehemenz 20 minutes ago
          This is unneedfully obtuse. Double hyphens are a stand-in for em dashes in most contexts.
  • root-parent 1 hour ago
  • bewareofscams 20 minutes ago
    Thief shouts "stealing bad".

    Murderer shouts "killing bad".

    • customguy 14 minutes ago
      And the cops just shake them a bit, waiting for the case to fall out naturally.
  • gaigalas 59 minutes ago
    > Everyone will have an exceptionally capable personal agent that understands you, your goals, and everything you care about.

    "One machine for every man, woman and children of Zion. Sounds exactly like the thinking of a machine to me." Morpheus

    It's a joke. OR IS IT? Yes it is, don't worry about it.

    • blharr 44 minutes ago
      Its weird to me that this is supposed to be THE end goal. Having an agent that does "everything" for you sounds like no paradise. It sounds depressing.

      Maybe there is value in expending effort and actual creativity.

      • phoghed 29 minutes ago
        Not sure why you’re talking about it doing literally everything for you. I’m sure you can imagine a scenario where it handles annoying things for you and leaves you free to do things you enjoy instead.

        Maybe it gets 10 car insurance quotes for you based on 4 models of car you’re considering.

        Or figures out which psychologists in some travel distance of you actually take your insurance, are taking new patients, and what availability they have.

        I can think of a ton of scenarios where a capable and reliable AI agent could make my life simpler.

      • detourdog 28 minutes ago
        I think this is just the flaw in the sales pitch. They want it to be inevitable so they describe as doing everything. That way it will appear more useful to more people. If they presented a realistic view of what is going it wouldn't be as interesting.
    • ben_w 52 minutes ago
      Still say Matrix 3 would have been better if the cliffhanger at the end of 2 had been that "the real world" was just another nested layer of the Matrix for those who rejected the primary fiction.

      I mean, why bother sending an army like that when one tiny robot could carry in a plague? Or, as demonstrated by Smith, when an Agent can virally infect and take over someone's mind while they're connected?

      Even in 1, Smith talked about the first Matrix failing as the humans rejected the paradise they were given, so it would've fitted perfectly into the cannon that minds who reject "the peak of your civilisation" got themselves a dystopia.

      • krzat 42 minutes ago
        The "nested reality" twist was already used by the "13th floor" movie so perhaps they intentionally choose a different direction.
      • gaigalas 48 minutes ago
        We should consider if my use of the quote was really a hook for talking about the script or a metaphor for something else. I won't spoil it by explaining too much though, let our imaginations run free on this one.
    • root-parent 45 minutes ago
      Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.
      • gaigalas 37 minutes ago
        Psalm 135:15-18 is my favorite version of it, the most clear-headed. It reads more as a warning "if you do this, then this will happen" than an unreasonable commandment.

        The idols of the nations are silver and gold, made by human hands. They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but cannot see. They have ears, but cannot hear, nor is there breath in their mouths. Those who make them will be like them, and so will all who trust in them.

        Don't worry about the scriptures though. It's likely to be just some old thinker pointing out the dangers of technologies of his time. No reason to believe those dangers carry over to today's technologies, probably.

  • fsuts 57 minutes ago
    Meta were fined by Mexico a few days ago so the timing today of a Meta doing good exercise is probably not coincidental

    https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-08-07/meta-order...

    • asa123 33 minutes ago
      new mexico == mexico
      • hk__2 21 minutes ago
        I’m surprised Trump hasn’t proposed to rename Mexico "Old Mexico".