Mark Zuckerberg attacks 'closed' AI rivals as Meta returns to open models

Post by alex1138 » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 6:27 AM UTC

runjake wrote: post #125

ViktorRay wrote: post #20

Comments here are surprising to me. I get folks don’t like Zuckerberg and his company and don’t trust his intentions… I don’t either. But this is an unquestionably good thing right?. The more open source software out there the better. And the more open weights or even over source AI stuff the better too right? More competition the better generally speaking I think. Unless I’m missing something and am getting this who…

If Zuck gets his way, he gets more control, maybe he gets significant control of the market. Then, he'll probably close his models, if the past is any indication, which leads to bad results. Maybe Zuck has, but I haven't seen a pledge that he'll keep models open. And even then, he might not stick to his word, citing dangers or some other excuse. But yeah, open models is a great concept.

Post by blablablerg » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 6:33 AM UTC

lukeschlather wrote: post #369

kylecazar wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most probably believe this is a good thing, but don't want to give Zuckerberg credit because a) he's had a profoundly negative impact on society and b) the strategy is transparent, he's trying to commoditize his closed rivals, it's not out of principle. I personally think more open models are a good thing regardless of motive.

The "commoditize his closed rivals" line of reasoning doesn't make sense to me. That doesn't sound like a business decision, it sounds potentially spiteful? But that's ascribing malice to what could just as easily be explained by good faith. Meta doesn't really offer any profit-making AI product, so I don't understand what commoditizing it buys them in this narrative. You could argue they rely on AI and so want it to…

Post by tjwebbnorfolk » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 6:40 AM UTC

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #438

tjwebbnorfolk wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

where's gemma 124b-a15?

Oh fuck, tjwebbnorfolk's got demands. Time to start working nights.

Post by thayne » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 7:02 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #397

JoshTriplett wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason why llama is open source Llama has never been open source. It's source-available, but still proprietary, under terms that (among other things) say "no competing with us, you have to buy a license for that".

There is no source available. Its just open weights.

Post by thayne » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 7:26 AM UTC

sicktriple wrote: post #413

bushido wrote: post #226

I think something that doesn't get said enough is Meta did, albeit intentionally kick off the origin of the open source race back in 2023 with the release of llama. I'm not a big fan of meta in general, but they've done enough good, and it's possible that it was intentional as well. I don't know, I wasn't in the rooms, and I think it's worth giving them some reasonable doubt. No one is purely good, and no one is pure…

Applying value judgements to corporate bodies or institutions as if they have individual agency is a fallacy anyways. We should always look at these things materially. "Meta" can't be good or evil, because an idea can't have a morality. It's comprised of the individuals who make the decisions, sure, but those individuals are always going to be motivated by a plethora of reasons which are often contradictory, most not…