Guy, you know that no one really owns the technology, right? Lots and lots of Neural Network projects are open source, OR rely heavily on open source implementations inside a larger framework.
If you wanted you could build a server using cheap (second hand) commercial off the shelf (CotS) parts, compile your own Neural Network model (or three) and then run them on your own hardware.
I had lunch today with someone who has three servers they use for running experimental versions of very recent Neural Network architectures.
I admit that I don't fucking trust Google or Microsoft who are rolling out services accessible through phones etc, but I have never trusted Google or Microsoft. Why is this different?
So, here is a question, since it is literally trivial to own the hardware AND the source code running on the hardware, how can "these left wing companies" stop anyone from making the "art" they want?
Every single time you open your mouth, you just demonstrate that you know almost literally nothing about the subject. You just vomit irrational hatred and spew insults. It is kind of tiring.
Well, now it is your chance to call me a gay troll faggot or whatever. Go to.
You have to have training data. Since you're so in the know you do realize this? The guy with "three neural nets" (holy fuck bro!) either has large annotated data lakes already or is using open source training data.
You know those aren't free to build or use? You know they're rarely high quality sources because of this? I mean if one works why use three? Must be a lot of success there or something.
This "technology" is a clarion call to midwits and failing managers everywhere. I am, understandably, hostile to this set. Like people who try to turn this basic and entirely objective technological observation into retarded political garbage.
Open source software (OSS) is source code developed and maintained through open collaboration. Anyone can use, examine, alter and redistribute OSS as they see fit, typically at no cost.
An example of a high profile Open Source Neural Network project is Llama 2.
Llama 2 is the next generation of Meta's open source large language model. It is free for research and commercial use, making it a great project to contribute to. It has a large community support from both Meta and Microsoft and is ideal for those interested in large language models and natural language processing
So to repeat, Llama 2 (by Microsoft / Meta partnership) has freely available source code AND is free for research and commercial use.
There are versions of the Neural Network you can get that are already trained, or you can, as you pointed out, use Open Source training data OR you can compile your own training data set to supplement (or even replace) an open source set.
For what it is worth, I think that most of the ways that Large Language Models will be used will be a net negative. I am frankly shocked at the low standard of teaching and the low skills and "care factor" of teachers. It seems counterproductive to give teachers and their managers, who don't seem to have standards or accountability, access to LLMs to plan their lessons for them and then mark the work of their students.
But this is changing the subject. You said that people would not be able to produce the art they wanted, due to commercial control of the technology and the derivative services.
Guy, you know that no one really owns the technology, right? Lots and lots of Neural Network projects are open source, OR rely heavily on open source implementations inside a larger framework.
If you wanted you could build a server using cheap (second hand) commercial off the shelf (CotS) parts, compile your own Neural Network model (or three) and then run them on your own hardware.
I had lunch today with someone who has three servers they use for running experimental versions of very recent Neural Network architectures.
I admit that I don't fucking trust Google or Microsoft who are rolling out services accessible through phones etc, but I have never trusted Google or Microsoft. Why is this different?
So, here is a question, since it is literally trivial to own the hardware AND the source code running on the hardware, how can "these left wing companies" stop anyone from making the "art" they want?
Every single time you open your mouth, you just demonstrate that you know almost literally nothing about the subject. You just vomit irrational hatred and spew insults. It is kind of tiring.
Well, now it is your chance to call me a gay troll faggot or whatever. Go to.
You have to have training data. Since you're so in the know you do realize this? The guy with "three neural nets" (holy fuck bro!) either has large annotated data lakes already or is using open source training data.
You know those aren't free to build or use? You know they're rarely high quality sources because of this? I mean if one works why use three? Must be a lot of success there or something.
This "technology" is a clarion call to midwits and failing managers everywhere. I am, understandably, hostile to this set. Like people who try to turn this basic and entirely objective technological observation into retarded political garbage.
Go whine to a chatbot or something.
No, I said he had three servers for Neural Networks. Want to take a guess on how many servers he has for other uses? I mean, it is his literal job.
Do you really, truly, honestly not know what Open Source means? Fuck! you don't! Okay. I can help.
From IBM.com
An example of a high profile Open Source Neural Network project is Llama 2.
So to repeat, Llama 2 (by Microsoft / Meta partnership) has freely available source code AND is free for research and commercial use.
There are versions of the Neural Network you can get that are already trained, or you can, as you pointed out, use Open Source training data OR you can compile your own training data set to supplement (or even replace) an open source set.
For what it is worth, I think that most of the ways that Large Language Models will be used will be a net negative. I am frankly shocked at the low standard of teaching and the low skills and "care factor" of teachers. It seems counterproductive to give teachers and their managers, who don't seem to have standards or accountability, access to LLMs to plan their lessons for them and then mark the work of their students.
But this is changing the subject. You said that people would not be able to produce the art they wanted, due to commercial control of the technology and the derivative services.
So the question is: Did you know that was a lie?