The worst part is that they even lack internal consistency, so they (someone at least) know it's wrong, yet they persist regardless.

> https://www.llama.com/ - "Industry Leading, Open-Source AI"

> https://www.llama.com/llama4/license/ - “Llama Materials” means, collectively, Meta’s proprietary Llama 4

Either the team that built the landing page (Marketing dept?) is wrong, or the legal department is wrong. I'm pretty sure I know who I'd bet on to be more correct.

▲

lrvick 4 days ago | parent [-]

Meta is indeed leading the gaslighting efforts to convince the press and masses that binary blobs provably built from pirated sources are actually Open Source.

The sad part is it is working. It is almost like Meta is especially skilled at mass public manipulation.

▲

rightbyte 4 days ago | parent [-]

To be fair Zuckerberg is not the worst, "OpenAI".

	▲	diggan 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		To be honest, they're more or less the same. Zuckerberg frequently talks proudly of his "open source models" constantly, while OpenAI at least doesn't claim to release open source models when they're not. Still, agree that the name should change, but in my eyes they're equally shit at knowing what "Open" is supposed to mean.