undefined | Better HN

0 pointstw041y ago0 comments

>In the early days of high-performance computing, the major tech companies of the day each invested heavily in developing their own closed source versions of Unix.

Because they sold the resultant code and systems built on it for money... this is the gold miner saying that all shovels and jeans should be free.

Am I happy Facebook open sources some of their code? Sure, I think it's good for everyone. Do I think they're talking out of both sides of their mouth? Absolutely.

Let me know when Facebook opens up the entirety of their Ad and Tracking platforms and we can start talking about how it's silly for companies to keep software closed.

I can say with 100% confidence if Facebook were selling their AI advances instead of selling the output it produces, they wouldn't be advocating for everyone else to open source their stacks.

0 comments

JumpCrisscross1y ago

> if Facebook were selling their AI advances instead of selling the output it produces, they wouldn't be advocating for everyone else to open source their stack

You're acting as if commoditizing one's complements is either new or reprehensible [1].

[1] https://gwern.net/complement

tw04OP1y ago

>You're acting as if commoditizing one's complements is either new or reprehensible [1].

I'm acting as if calling on other companies to open source their core product, just because it's a complement for you, and acting as if it's for the benefit of mankind is disingenuous, which it is.

stale20021y ago

> as if it's for the benefit of mankind

But it does benefit mankind.

More free tech products is good for the world.

This is a good thing. When people or companies do good things, they should get the credit for doing good things.

JumpCrisscross1y ago

> acting as if it's for the benefit of mankind is disingenuous, which it is

Is it bad for mankind that Meta publishes its weights? Mutually beneficial is a valid game state--there is no moral law that requires anything good be made as a sacrifice.

rvnx1y ago

The source-code to Ad tracking platform is useless to users.

At the end, it's actually Facebook doing the right thing (though they are known for being evil).

It's a bit of an irony.

The supposedly "good" and "open" people like Google or OpenAI, haven't given their model weights.

A bit like Microsoft became the company that actually supports the whole open-source ecosystem with GitHub.

tw04OP1y ago

>The source-code to Ad tracking platform is useless to users.

It's absolutely not useless for developers looking to build a competing project.

>The supposedly "good" and "open" people like Google or OpenAI, haven't given their model weights.

Because they're monetizing it... the only reason Facebook is giving it away is because it's a complement to their core product of selling ads. If they were monetizing it, it would be closed source. Just like their Ads platform...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointstw041y ago0 comments

>In the early days of high-performance computing, the major tech companies of the day each invested heavily in developing their own closed source versions of Unix.

Because they sold the resultant code and systems built on it for money... this is the gold miner saying that all shovels and jeans should be free.

Am I happy Facebook open sources some of their code? Sure, I think it's good for everyone. Do I think they're talking out of both sides of their mouth? Absolutely.

Let me know when Facebook opens up the entirety of their Ad and Tracking platforms and we can start talking about how it's silly for companies to keep software closed.

I can say with 100% confidence if Facebook were selling their AI advances instead of selling the output it produces, they wouldn't be advocating for everyone else to open source their stacks.

0 comments

JumpCrisscross1y ago

> if Facebook were selling their AI advances instead of selling the output it produces, they wouldn't be advocating for everyone else to open source their stack

You're acting as if commoditizing one's complements is either new or reprehensible [1].

[1] https://gwern.net/complement

tw04OP1y ago

>You're acting as if commoditizing one's complements is either new or reprehensible [1].

I'm acting as if calling on other companies to open source their core product, just because it's a complement for you, and acting as if it's for the benefit of mankind is disingenuous, which it is.

stale20021y ago

> as if it's for the benefit of mankind

But it does benefit mankind.

More free tech products is good for the world.

This is a good thing. When people or companies do good things, they should get the credit for doing good things.

JumpCrisscross1y ago

> acting as if it's for the benefit of mankind is disingenuous, which it is

Is it bad for mankind that Meta publishes its weights? Mutually beneficial is a valid game state--there is no moral law that requires anything good be made as a sacrifice.

rvnx1y ago

The source-code to Ad tracking platform is useless to users.

At the end, it's actually Facebook doing the right thing (though they are known for being evil).

It's a bit of an irony.

The supposedly "good" and "open" people like Google or OpenAI, haven't given their model weights.

A bit like Microsoft became the company that actually supports the whole open-source ecosystem with GitHub.

tw04OP1y ago

>The source-code to Ad tracking platform is useless to users.

It's absolutely not useless for developers looking to build a competing project.

>The supposedly "good" and "open" people like Google or OpenAI, haven't given their model weights.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse