I have always found concepts such as "commoditize the complement" very interesting. For some reason, they seem like pseudo explanations of behaviours we see fro

I have always found concepts such as "commoditize the complement" very interesting. For some reason, they seem like pseudo explanations of behaviours we see from companies. I am not entirely convinced that this was Meta's reasoning for releasing Llama. Like, I think Zuck is not thinking along these lines while open srcing LLMs. How is Llama a complement of Meta's products? Meta wants more social interaction. It's a big stretch to assume LLMs will lead to more shareable social content (unless meta wants AI bots, in which case they don't need LLMs; they can just relax their moderation policies). I honestly still don't have any good explanations for releasing Llama. Even the explanation of Meta gaining value from public improvements to Llama seems too vague and a stretch. Meta has enough engineers to make the most useful improvements themselves. The cost and effort of open srcing Llama is >> the value Meta gains from public improvements of Llama. So, yeah this is still an open ques for me...