Is this "I'm losing so I think we should change the rules"? Because it seems like that.

It’s a long term pattern. When you’re winning (Anthropic), you keep the tech closed and try to monetize it as much as possible. When you’re losing (Meta), you open it up or drag it into a standards committee to either devalue it or slow the leader down while you prepare a “standard” version of it. You also highlight how altruistic and morally good you are for having done so. There is nothing new under the sun. It’s all a game.

▲

sanderjd 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, but it's good for everyone that the strategy of attempting to commoditize the cash cow of a competitor exists.

▲

overfeed an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> ...drag it into a standards committee to either devalue it or slow the leader down

Anthropic et al recently proposed a supranational AI governing body designed to slow everyone down (euphemistically calling it "AI pacing"). Are the Pacer signatories losing?

	▲	skohan an hour ago \| parent [-]
		That could be a move towards regulatory capture. Enact standards that they (and OpenAI) largely control, block access to Chinese models in the US, and effectively prevent challengers from catching up. At the same time they slow down the arms race, so they can back off on training Capex without losing their lead.

▲

basch 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No. Opening it is to commoditize and reduce the price to use. This increases participation and creates new consumers and demand. Demand creates justification for further creation.

All the participants know it’s both a race to the bottom and a competition for premium tier at the same time. It’s two different games, meta in only really playing one of them successfully.

	▲	Melatonic 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I suspect its also because Facebook has the infrastructure to do this. One thing they have done from the start is quite good infrastructure without outsourcing to any of the big cloud providers. I cant imagine demand / bandwith / compute use is increasing much for Facebook itself so they probably have the money and time to dedicate to scaling up for AI research.

▲

sodapopcan 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Similar to Altman saying "we should slow down."

▲

amarcheschi 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

or musk a few years ago, pause ai training for 6 months (so we can catch up)

▲

scotty79 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

OpenAI is not losing though. Fable is barely available and barely cooperates. Sonnet 5 is obnoxious model that's terrible to work with. GPT-5.6-sol competently gets stuff done. Just be careful not to ask it for impossible stuff because you might not like the lengths it's gonna go to get them done regardless.

	▲	VCFundedGenYer 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		OpenAI is losing historic amounts of money. They are constantly at risk of bankruptcy or going far under. No AI company is winning.
	▲	sodapopcan 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Not to American companies, he said this after the recent Chinese release (I can't keep up with model names... Kimi K...3?)

▲

wombat-man an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think the plan is to move on to selling compute. So yeah, open your models so people can pay to run them on Meta hardware.

▲

whateveracct 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

meta playing spoiler, yeah. fun stuff!

▲

HDThoreaun 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It makes strategic sense for Meta to want ai in general to be open. Their own product strategy focuses on utilizing the ai to make their customers consume more ads, not selling the raw intelligence. When you look at it from that frame it’s clear that metas goal is to make it so that have free access to the best ai, not that the market size of selling intelligence grows.

▲

RunSet 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"They 'trust me'. Dumb fucks."

\- Mark Zuckerberg[0]

[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-fa...

▲

basch 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It was an insightful comment at the time he made it.

His point wasn’t that he couldn’t be trusted, it was that he could be anyone and people had zero awareness or concern for their privacy. It was eye opening to him how little people outside tech circles cared about security, and he was both flippant and accurate.

▲

alex1138 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

WHY was it an insightful comment

Do you not realize that outside of that he said "If you need any info on people at Harvard just ask"? Or "I'm going to fuck them [the Winklevoss twins] in the ear"? Or when he was reported to hack Crimson (Harvard newspaper) reporters who were investigating him?

NO OTHER COMPANY HEADS DO THIS (the dumb fucks quote, not the other things). Why do people like you give him a pass? It's not about "context"

Zuckerberg has also continually subverted privacy on FB. I'm talking about things like photo tagging and post visibility, not just advertiser stuff

▲

soraminazuki 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No. That was him mocking his users in private, knowing he was exploiting kids who had no clue what they were getting into.

> the following exchange is between a 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg and a friend shortly after Mark launched The Facebook in his dorm room:

> Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

> Zuck: Just ask.

> Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

> [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

> Zuck: People just submitted it.

> Zuck: I don't know why.

> Zuck: They "trust me"

> Zuck: Dumb fucks.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-fa...

Do you really see this as him sharing insight? I call bullshit.

▲

basch 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It has nothing to do with exploiting them. It was about them turning over personal information to a nobody.

It can be insightful and curt at the same time.

▲

soraminazuki 3 hours ago | parent [-]

If you don't see that as exploitation, then we have much bigger issues to discuss. Like baseline ethics.

	▲	sajithdilshan an hour ago \| parent [-]
		ethics would be the first thing to sacrifice for profits. I mean meta even broke laws for profits.

▲

lenerdenator 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah? Everyone everywhere does that all the time. That's the first rule of business: try to game the system.

And this time, it's actually somewhat understandable, as opposed to the other times Meta has done horrible things on Zuck's watch, like contributed to ethnic hatred in Myanmar, leaked data to political firms so that they can run psyops, or enabled the production of CSAM material on Meta's platforms.

▲

Yizahi 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That, and also redefining what a word "open" means, helps him avoid direct financial and criminal responsibility for stealing other people's data. Not that there was any real chance of that ever, but he is reducing that remaining 0.000000001% chance even lower.