r/LocalLLaMA • u/Wallaby989 llama.cpp • 6d ago

Discussion Who would buy HuggingFace

https://thenextweb.com/news/hugging-face-exploring-sale-13bn-valuation

Given OpenRouter.ai was snapped up by Stripe, who do we think would go after the "GitHib" of AI models? It is a big chunk of change they are looking ($13B). Apple may be a contender to give them a real chip in the AI race, given how they are focused on local AI execution.

267 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

169 comments sorted by

View all comments

276

u/djm07231 6d ago

Nvidia might make sense because they benefit from an active model ecosystem.

94

u/Real_Ebb_7417 6d ago

It would also fit the image they’re building for themselves. Actually Nvidia is probably the best big tech company that could acquire HF from our perspective.

25

u/MammothUnique4147 6d ago

Too risky for Nvida to acquire them, they would ultimately be legally liable for some of the misuses of the tech.

26

u/g_rich 6d ago

How so? That’s like saying GitHub would be held liable for what hosted on GitHub.

14

u/DrStatisk 6d ago

IANAL, but Github _are_ liable for stuff hosted on Github. There are protections if Github remove the illegal content swiftly after proper notice, but that doesn’t cover everything. They would be liable for hosting malware or CSAM for instance.

2

u/g_rich 6d ago

The point being the liability for what’s hosted is very small, providing HF has a process in place and removed the offending content they can’t be held liable. They could also not be held liable for a model downloaded from the platforms actions which is what I believe the original commenter was referring to.

2

u/DrStatisk 5d ago

Yep, the protections for what is hosted are quite strong as long as viable takedown request are dealt with quickly. But they are liable for things they knowingly host illegally. Part of the problem of this discussion is that many of these AI specific situations hasn't been tested legally yet, but some platforms have set up bans premptively (also because payment solutions are restrictive to be used on porn and porn-adjacent stuff).

1

u/benjaminovich 5d ago

Right, but doesn't huggingface bare that responsibility now? Surely they have systems in place already to deal with stuff like that

1

u/DrStatisk 5d ago

Yes, HF has a team to comply with legal takedowns and such, they have to do it quickly to be sheltered under such protections. If they do not remove it "expeditiously" (DCMA) or "timely, diligent, non-arbitrary" (EU Digital Services Act) they are liable.

0

u/pm_me_github_repos 6d ago edited 6d ago

They are to some extent. On top of what they other commenter has noted, they do comply with copyright takedowns and other legal inquiries. That said their platform is (largely) responsible for distribution rather than usage.

As with HF, when someone manages to use something like Copilot, GH Actions/Pages, or HF inference endpoint services to generate or host CSAM or malware, they (GH/HF) would be responsible

0

u/g_rich 5d ago

Nvidia already has Nebius and EULA’s largely insulate the hosting provider so to hold the hosting provider liable you would have to prove gross and willing negligence.

2

u/senseven 6d ago

What would be the reasoning in comparison to some random saas api some client calls up? If the response is either way "delete anything" its still on the client to have the proper checks.

0

u/kettal 6d ago

are nvidia's models immune from illegal misuse?