Thread

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

1. deaux · 1786038319 · focus · HN ↗

   Stunning to see so many comments here very eager to try it out and cheering for it. Meta is not one bit better (and in reality worse) than Larry Elisson or Palantir but I doubt we'd be seeing this if it'd be Oracle Code or Palantir Code.

   Though I guess that there's such a big population of (ex-)Meta employees here that this might explain it.

   1. AnodicElegy · 1786042477 · focus · HN ↗

      I think a lot of people are simply glad to see so much viable competition in the LLM space. Given the oligopolistic outcomes in Big Tech over the past couple decades, it would be nice if Big AI turned out differently, even if a lot of those competing have monopolies or near-monopolies in other spheres.
2. lenerdenator · 1786041255 · focus · HN ↗

   Honestly not getting the bet from Meta here. A few weeks ago, they signed the letter about not regulating open models. Now they're dropping this. Are they going open and hosting the models for others, or are they still doing closed frontier models that fall into the same trap as Anthropic/OpenAI?

   Or is it just whatever Zuck has to do to be 1% not villain that week?

3. midnightbobarun · 1786043581 · focus · HN ↗

   I think Meta might have made a mistake by not offering a free tier like Google did when they release Gemini CLI back in the day, or even how OpenAI lets you use Codex (or whatever it's called now) for free with a monthly usage limit for free plans. It'd be a great way to get people into the Muse ecosystem, and they could tighten usage limits to "encourage" people to get a paid plan.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.