4 ms·
Sorry, I don't follow. >because someone else has better LLMs and builds them into products If that were true they wouldn't be trying to create the best LLM an
by moralestapia 1y ago
Sorry, I don't follow.
>because someone else has better LLMs and builds them into products
If that were true they wouldn't be trying to create the best LLM and give it for free.
(Disclaimer: I don't think Zuck is doing this out of the good of his heart, obv. but I don't see the connection with the complements and whatnot)
- mu53 1y agoI think its about sapping as much user data from competitors. A company seeking to use an LLM has a choice between OpenAI, LLaMA, and others. If they choose LLaMA because it's free and host it themselves, OpenAI misses out on training data and other data like that
- chartered_stack 1y agoWell is the loss of training data from customers using self-hosted Llama that big a deal for OpenAI or any of the big labs at this point? Maybe in late-2022/early-2023 during the early stages of RLHF'd mass models but not today I don't think. Offerings from the big labs have pretty much settled into specific niches and people have started using them in certain ways across the board. The early land grab is over and consolidation has started.
- comfysocks 1y agoMeta has ad revenue. I think Meta’s play is to make it difficult for pure AI competitors to make revenue through LLMs.
- simianwords 1y agoThat’s not commoditising the complement!
- comfysocks 1y agoI’m not the poster that said it was that.
- ethbr1 1y agoMeta's play is to make sure there isn't an obvious superiority to one company's closed LLM -- because that's what would drive customers to choosing that company's product(s). If LLM effectiveness is all about the same, then other factors dominate customer choice. Like which (legacy) platforms have the strongest network effects. (Which Meta would be thrilled about)