EDedent·Jul 31, 2024Submission
Character Spacing Bypass in Prompt-Guard-86M Classifier
2 points · Open discussionmeta-llama
llama-models
Python2024–2025
meta-llama / llama-models
llama-models
Utilities intended for use with Llama models.
18Distinct people
19Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
7.7KGitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
Utilities intended for use with Llama models.
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use was verified in the last source check.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 9:01:12 PM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by month19 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2024-07-23 14:59:19 UTC to 2025-06-30 15:02:49 UTC.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 2024 | 2024-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2024-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 7 | 2 | 5 |
| Aug 2024 | 2024-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2024-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 2024-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2024-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 4 | 1 | 3 |
| Oct 2024 | 2024-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2024-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Nov 2024 | 2024-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2024-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dec 2024 | 2024-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Jan 2025 | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb 2025 | 2025-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 2025-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-04-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Apr 2025 | 2025-04-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-05-01 00:00:00 UTC | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| May 2025 | 2025-05-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 2025 | 2025-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
What Hacker News says
7 sourcesIt's not precise. People who want to use "open weights" instead of "open source" are focusing on the wrong thing.
The weights are, for all practical purposes, source code in their own right. The GPL defines "source code" as "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". Almost no one would be capable of reproducing them even if given the source + data. At the same time, the weights are exactly what you need for the one type of modification that's within reach of most people: fine-tuning. That they didn't release the surrounding code that produced this "source" isn't that much different than a company releasing a library but not their whole software stack.
I'd argue that "source" vs "weights" is a dangerous distraction from the far more insidious word in "open source" when used to refer to the Llama license: "open".
The L
Read the rest
lama 3.1 license [0] specifically forbids its use by very large organizations, by militaries, and by nuclear industries. It also contains a long list of forbidden use cases. This specific list sounds very reasonable to me on its face, but having a list of specific groups of people or fields of endeavor who are banned from participating runs counter to the spirit of open source and opens up the possibility that new "open" licenses come out with different lists of forbidden uses that sound less reasonable.
To be clear, I'm totally fine with them having those terms in their license, but I'm uncomfortable with setting the precedent of embracing the word "open" for it.
Llama is "nearly-open source". That's good enough for me to be able to use it for what I want, but the word "open" is the one that should be called out. "Source" is fine.
[0] https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models/blob/main/models/...
latest llama 3.1 is in a different repo, https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models/blob/main/models/... , but yes, the code is shared.
It astonishing that in software 2.0 era, powerful applications like llama has only hundreds of lines of code, and most work hidden in training data.
Source code alone is no longer that informative as Software 1.0
In Open source AI is the path forwardLlama 3.1: 405B, the largest openly available model released
8 points · Open discussion30.84M H100 compute-hours, according to the model card
https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models/blob/main/models/...
In Llama 3.1this "Model Card" github link on [https://llama.meta.com/docs/overview/] seems broken?
https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models/blob/main/models/...
In Llama 3.1The resources for link to model card[1], research paper, and Prompt Guard Tutorial[2] on the page doesn't exist yet
[1]: https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models/blob/main/models/...
[2]: https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-recipes/blob/main/recipe...
In Llama 3.1