Comment by ipsum2
4 months ago
This has nothing to do with superintelligence, it's just the people that were working on the paper prior to the re-org happened to publish after the name change.
Though it is notable that contrary to many (on HN and Twitter) that Meta would stop publishing papers and be like other AI labs (e.g. OpenAI). They're continued their rapid pace of releasing papers AND open source models.
What model(s) have Meta released since the Lab re-org?
Also, that wasn't based on purely hearsay, Zuck explicitly said:
> We believe the benefits of superintelligence should be shared with the world as broadly as possible. That said, superintelligence will raise novel safety concerns. We'll need to be rigorous about mitigating these risks and careful about what we choose to open source. Still, we believe that building a free society requires that we aim to empower people as much as possible. [0]
[0]: https://www.meta.com/superintelligence/
That has always been the policy. To answer your question, Meta has released ~100 models since the Superintelligence Lab reorg.
https://huggingface.co/facebook/models
The most interesting ones to me are:
- CWM (Code world model), an LLM for coding https://github.com/facebookresearch/cwm
- DINOv3, A vision encoder https://ai.meta.com/dinov3/
- MAPAnything, a 3d reconstruction model https://huggingface.co/facebook/map-anything
- VJEPA v2, Self-supervised video pre-training model https://github.com/facebookresearch/vjepa2
> We believe the benefits of superintelligence should be shared with the world as broadly as possible.
i'd interpret that as meaning "everybody is welcome to be our customer, but we're still control all of it"
You still believe anything that comes out of his mouth?
When did Zuck start caring about society?
Is this a trick question? Probably before he was even born.
2 replies →
Open weights models, not open source. And even their weights are under a specific license not as permissive as apache 2.
This is the right terminology. Model weights are literally compiled binary data; they are the output of an algorithm run on a bunch of source data. That training dataset is the "source" of the model. Training data (or the scripts used to generate it) is human-readable and modifiable, like source code. Binary weights are not.
Just to note though, source copyright extends to its compiled form. There is probably an analogue there for model weights.
1 reply →
Binary weights can still be "edited" with additional training.
2 replies →
I propose that from now on we call freewares "open binaries".
Does an “open source” model the way you describe it exist or is it a mythical creature?
Unicorns also don't exist, but we don't change the definition to include horses.
2 replies →
An open source model does exist now [1] and is multilingual. Previous discussion [2].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44535637
It does, but does it matter? Even if every software released in 2025 was proprietary, doesn't make their published binaries "open source" because no other software could be classified as "open source".
We name things based on what they are, not based on the lack of other things.
There aren’t many but they do exist. OLMo for example.
Olmo by AllenAI and Pythia by EleutherAI.
Apertus by EPFL and ETH Zürich.
I believe it does. OLMO.
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that the weights aren't subject to copyright. So, you can use them outside of Meta's license agreement provided you get them from somewhere else.
Still, I think the optics matter... the fact that Meta's still putting out technical work (and open sourcing it) after the restructure says a lot about where they want to position themselves
Should be the top comment.
MSL is not only those few high profile hires.