Llama.cpp 30B runs with only 6GB of RAM now

An anonymous HN user named L pledged $200k for llama-dl’s legal defense: https://twitter.com/theshawwn/status/1641804013791215619?s=6...

This may not seem like much vs Meta, but it’s enough to get the issue into the court system where it can be settled. The tweet chain has the details.

The takeaway for you is that you’ll soon be able to use LLaMA without worrying that Facebook will knock you offline for it. (I wouldn’t push your luck by trying to use it for commercial purposes though.)

Past discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35288415

I’d also like to take this opportunity to thank all of the researchers at MetaAI for their tremendous work. It’s because of them that we have access to such a wonderful model in the first place. They have no say over the legal side of things. One day we’ll all come together again, and this will just be a small speedbump in the rear view mirror.

EDIT: Please do me a favor and skip ahead to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35393615

It's from jart, the author of the PR the submission points to. I really had no idea that this was a de facto Show HN, and it's terribly rude to post my comment in that context. I only meant to reassure everyone that they can freely hack on llama, not make a huge splash and detract from their moment on HN. (I feel awful about that; it's wonderful to be featured on HN, and no one should have to share their spotlight when it's a Show HN. Apologies.)

As you may be aware, a counter-notice that meets the statutory requirements will result in reinstatement unless Meta sues over it. So the question isn't so much whether your counter-notice covers all the potential defenses as whether Meta is willing to sue.

The primary hurdle you're going to face is your argument that weights are not creative works, and not copyrightable. That argument is unlikely to succeed for the the following reasons (just off the top of my head): (i) The act of selecting training data is more akin to an encyclopedia than the white pages example you used on Twitter, and encyclopedias are copyrightable as to the arrangement and specific descriptions of facts, even though the underlying facts are not; and (ii) LLaMA, GPT-N, Bard, etc, all have different weights, different numbers of parameters, different amounts of training data, and different tuning, which puts paid to the idea that there is only one way to express the underlying ideas, or that all of it is necessarily controlled by the specific math involved.

In addition, Meta has the financial wherewithal to crush you even were you legally on sound footing.

The upshot of all of this is that you may win for now if Meta doesn't want to file a rush lawsuit, but in the long run, you likely lose.

If the LLM is a specific arrangement of the copyrighted works, it's very clearly a derivative work of them

However, to address your point about derivative works directly, the consensus among copyright law experts appears to be that whether a particular model output is infringing depends on the standard copyright infringement analysis (and that’s regardless of the minor and correctable issue represented by memorization/overfitting of duplicate data in training sets). Only in the most unserious legal complaint (the class action filed against Midjourney, Stability AI, etc.) is the argument being made and that the models actually contain copies of the training data.