On: Outperforming larger language models with less tra...

[nomel]

> it being open-source

Absolutely not. The LLAMA license [1] is clear that it's not open source. It's for non-commercial, research only, and only by explicit permission from Meta. The weights were leaked, on 4chan [2], illegally, according to the license. Very very few people are using it legally. This interpretation is clear from its wording, and also matches the interpretation of our flock of lawyers.

[1] https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/issues/266

[2] https://levelup.gitconnected.com/metas-chatgpt-is-now-illega...

[astrange → nomel]

Llama 2 doesn't use that license and llama.cpp isn't limited to using those models anyway.

[nomel → astrange]

True. That gives these companies a little less than two months to start contributing, with the easier license restrictions in mind.

But, Llama 2 is not open source [1].

[1] https://blog.opensource.org/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-ope...

[stringtoint → nomel]

You're correct, I confused it with LLAMA being more business-friendly (at least in theory) than some other models out there.

[brucethemoose2 → nomel]

I wonder what legal teams (such as y'alls legal dept) think of the new license.