3 ms·
> Third, a key difference between Meta and closed model providers is that selling access to AI models isn’t our business model. That means openly releasing Llam
by 6gvONxR4sf7o 2y ago
> Third, a key difference between Meta and closed model providers is that selling access to AI models isn’t our business model. That means openly releasing Llama doesn’t undercut our revenue, sustainability, or ability to invest in research like it does for closed providers. (This is one reason several closed providers consistently lobby governments against open source.)
The whole thing is interesting, but this part strikes me as potentially anticompetitive reasoning. I wonder what the lines are that they have to avoid crossing here?
- phkahler 2y ago>> ...but this part strikes me as potentially anticompetitive reasoning. "Commoditize your complements" is an accepted strategy. And while pricing below cost to harm competitors is often illegal, the reality is that the marginal cost of software is zero.
- Palomides 2y agospending a very quantifiable large amount of money to release something your nominal competitors charge for without having your own direct business case for it seems a little much
- phkahler 2y agoCompanies spend very large amounts of money on all sorts of things that never even get released. Nothing wrong with releasing something for free that no longer costs you anything. Who knows why they developed it in the first place, it makes no difference.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]