I strongly endorse the commodify complement hypothesis, but here are others: 1. The only one that matters - the controlling founder wants to 2. It's great mar

I strongly endorse the commodify complement hypothesis, but here are others: 1. The only one that matters - the controlling founder wants to 2. It's great marketing. Make Facebook engineering (which is talented) seem cool. Also let their talented engineering teams flex their muscles a bit. 3. Investing in GPUs is a decent hedge in case there is something world changing coming (imagine Instagram reels but 50% of the content is ai generated. Or maybe just all ads are). Remember mobile - a previous paradigm shift - was an existential threat for Facebook 4. This is inline with the complement hypothesis, but what are you going to do with text you generate with llama? Some of that content will go right back on Facebook or one of their many platforms 5. WhatsApp business is a thing, and Facebook is talented enough at engineering that they can mimic any cool chat bot tools people build and integrate them into that 6. It's free for them (what are the downsides?) and reputationally gives them a certain kind of moral high ground compared to Google or OpenAI 7. Oh, the publicity will sell users on accessing the llama API hosted on Google (which pays Facebook money) What are the downsides? Like seriously!