A NYT article on the debate around whether LLM base models should be closed or open. Meta argues for openness, starting with the release of LLaMA (for non-commercial use), while OpenAI and Google want to keep things closed and proprietary. They argue that openness can be dangerous. But they are just protecting their commercial interests. I argue that closeness is *considerably* more dangerous than openness. Once LLMs become the main channel through which everyone accesses information, people (and governments) will *demand* that it be open and transparent. Basic infrastructure must be open. "Dr. LeCun also pointed to recent history to explain why Meta was committed to open-sourcing A.I. technology. He said the evolution of the consumer internet was the result of open, communal standards that helped build the fastest, most widespread knowledge-sharing network the world had ever seen. “Progress is faster when it is open,” he said. “You have a more vibrant ecosystem where everyone can contribute." "In Battle Over A.I., Meta Decides to Give Away Its Crown Jewels." nyti.ms/3Wf1yIc?smid=nytcore…