2 ms·

But if they don't sell them, are they spending 50 billion a year on open source goodwill?

diggan 2y ago
No, it seems to me like a stopgap measure against others, rather than anything for themselves. If they were out after "open source goodwill" they'd actually release the models as open source (like let people use it without signing a license/terms agreement, and use models for whatever). As it stands today, they're tricking people into "open source goodwill" but it will eventually catch up with them.
spacebanana7 2y ago
From Meta’s perspective, AI could be incredibly profitable in the context of generating adverts or interactive chat bots for businesses. They just don’t want to use OpenAI/Google models because they fear being screwed over by them with anti-advert terms of service or price increases. Similar to what they suffered with Apple.
matwood 2y ago
It's like everyone forgets that App Tracking Transparency (ATT) was supposed to put Meta out of business. By many accounts, Meta's ad targeting is even better now than before ATT. It's been reported that AI is what saved their ad targeting. The OSS goodwill is just a side effect and a way to undermine companies who are not using AI to effectively make profits today. Cheaper/more efficient is absolutely great for Meta. If they can lower their capex it would be an instant bump to their bottom line.
- pickledoyster 2y ago
  > By many accounts, Meta's ad targeting is even better now than before ATT. Could you please provide any sources for this claim?
  - matwood 2y ago
    First link was soon after and they had already regained 80%+ back. The second link was much more recent and appears to be continuing to expand. https://archive.is/8bRBH https://archive.is/8bRBH https://medium.com/@omarkorim/is-meta-really-moving-beyond-traditional-ad-tracking-d24a15b7f95d https://medium.com/@omarkorim/is-meta-really-moving-beyond-t...
    - pickledoyster 2y ago
      Thanks, but I don't really see how these articles support the claim that their ad network is more efficient. As you note, the first article has a single anecdata point about it actually being 10-15% worse, while the second one basically says 'trust me bro'. Also of note from the second article is the fact that the ad spend would actually increase. Of course, if businesses are gullible enough to believe facebook when it fudges up some brand lift metrics without having a real impact on conversions, that's their choice. Trusting facebook to report any analytics is how you take your business behind the barn and help it pivot to video. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivot_to_video https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivot_to_video
qwytw 2y ago
But now (presumably) they don't need to spend 50 billion? e.g. 5 billion or whatever might be enough which makes it even easier for them to justify this.

No, it seems to me like a stopgap measure against others, rather than anything for themselves. If they were out after "open source goodwill" they'd actually release the models as open source (like let people use it without signing a license/terms agreement, and use models for whatever). As it stands today, they're tricking people into "open source goodwill" but it will eventually catch up with them.

spacebanana7 2y ago

From Meta’s perspective, AI could be incredibly profitable in the context of generating adverts or interactive chat bots for businesses. They just don’t want to use OpenAI/Google models because they fear being screwed over by them with anti-advert terms of service or price increases. Similar to what they suffered with Apple.

matwood 2y ago

It's like everyone forgets that App Tracking Transparency (ATT) was supposed to put Meta out of business. By many accounts, Meta's ad targeting is even better now than before ATT. It's been reported that AI is what saved their ad targeting. The OSS goodwill is just a side effect and a way to undermine companies who are not using AI to effectively make profits today. Cheaper/more efficient is absolutely great for Meta. If they can lower their capex it would be an instant bump to their bottom line.

pickledoyster 2y ago
> By many accounts, Meta's ad targeting is even better now than before ATT. Could you please provide any sources for this claim?
- matwood 2y ago
  First link was soon after and they had already regained 80%+ back. The second link was much more recent and appears to be continuing to expand. https://archive.is/8bRBH https://archive.is/8bRBH https://medium.com/@omarkorim/is-meta-really-moving-beyond-traditional-ad-tracking-d24a15b7f95d https://medium.com/@omarkorim/is-meta-really-moving-beyond-t...
  - pickledoyster 2y ago
    Thanks, but I don't really see how these articles support the claim that their ad network is more efficient. As you note, the first article has a single anecdata point about it actually being 10-15% worse, while the second one basically says 'trust me bro'. Also of note from the second article is the fact that the ad spend would actually increase. Of course, if businesses are gullible enough to believe facebook when it fudges up some brand lift metrics without having a real impact on conversions, that's their choice. Trusting facebook to report any analytics is how you take your business behind the barn and help it pivot to video. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivot_to_video https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pivot_to_video

qwytw 2y ago

But now (presumably) they don't need to spend 50 billion? e.g. 5 billion or whatever might be enough which makes it even easier for them to justify this.