4 ms·
Sure, but don't you think the "not getting locked out" is just the pre-requisite for their eventual goal of locking everyone else out?
by mupuff1234 2y ago
Sure, but don't you think the "not getting locked out" is just the pre-requisite for their eventual goal of locking everyone else out?
- yesco 2y agoDoes it really matter? Attributing goodwill to a company is like attributing goodwill to a spider that happens to clean up the bugs in your basement. Sure if they had the ability to, I'm confident Meta would try something like that, but they obviously don't, and will not for the foreseeable future. I have faith they will continue to do what's in their best interests and if their best interests happen to align with mine, then I will support that. Just like how I don't bother killing the spider in my basement because it helps clean up the other bugs.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mupuff1234 2y agoBut you also know that the spider has been laying eggs so you better have an extermination plan ready.
- whitepaint 2y agoEveryone is aware of that. No one thinks Facebook or Mark are some saint entities. But while the spider is doing some good deeds why not just go "yeah! go spider!". Once it becomes an asshole, we will kill it. People are not dumb.
- mupuff1234 2y agoIt's not even truly open source, they set a user limit.
- xvector 2y agoI'm not particularly concerned about the user limit. The companies for which those limits will matter are so large that they should consider contributing back to humanity by developing their own SOTA foundation models.
- noiseinvacuum 2y agoIf by "everyone else" here you mean 3 or 4 large players trying to create a regulatory moat around themselves then I am fine with them getting locked out and not being able to create a moat for next 3 decades.