> Previously, you tried to say that FB was going to, I don't know, Sue startups who use LLAMA or something, due to them not yet releasing a commerical license, with a permissive license?
I’m not certain how to parse the last part of that sentence, but I'm fairly certain that I didn’t ever try to say that Facebook was going to sue LLaMa users, startups or otherwise.
I may have argued that the license terms created sufficient legal risk that most firms would be loathe to build on top of it, but that’s very much not the same thing.
> Do you still stand by this statement, now that FB has commercially released a large language model?
As far as I know, they have announced plans to release an LLM (which may or may not be LLaMa) with a commercially-usable (maybe open source) license in the near future, but have not yet done so.
But since I don’t recall making the claim (and have very clear reasons why I would have been unlikely to have), I won't stand by it even without the new information you indicate (which seems premature, AFAICT.)
I’m not certain how to parse the last part of that sentence, but I'm fairly certain that I didn’t ever try to say that Facebook was going to sue LLaMa users, startups or otherwise.
I may have argued that the license terms created sufficient legal risk that most firms would be loathe to build on top of it, but that’s very much not the same thing.
> Do you still stand by this statement, now that FB has commercially released a large language model?
As far as I know, they have announced plans to release an LLM (which may or may not be LLaMa) with a commercially-usable (maybe open source) license in the near future, but have not yet done so.
But since I don’t recall making the claim (and have very clear reasons why I would have been unlikely to have), I won't stand by it even without the new information you indicate (which seems premature, AFAICT.)