It is kind of ironic that they scraped the web for publicly available data and used it freely to train their models and now their freely available models are being used to train other models.

> Has food ever looked like the picture, though? I find this position unrealistic outside of an Amazon return excuse.

Yeah man it's unrealistic for restaurants to take pictures of the food they make and use that for the menu. Totally.

I feel the same way about Starfield. Just soulless projects instead of engaging video games.

Starfield is IMO worse. NMS at least has sandboxes that can entertain you and expeditions can be fun. NMS just doesn't have "goal" to work towards, so unless you can create your own goals its boring. Starfield, bugs aside, had the most boring base-building/operations I've seen in my life.

I think you answered your own question, simply un-democratize access. Go places with high barriers of entry.

You don't even need explicit barriers, the masses are staying on Reddit/Twitter regardless. Only the discerning are seeking out better and newer options and those options are staying the right size rather than absorbing the eternal September.

Hey if you want to passive agressively send AI responses to people because you are disgruntled that they even asked and have decided you don't want to confront them directly, go for it.

But I think the point of the original author still stands, even in that context.

They wrote that title specifically to mislead people.

The invitation is automated

Oh, that’s good, because if you automate something then you’re automatically absolved from all responsibility for its actions.

And you certainly shouldn’t bother monitoring what it’s doing.

If you want to write misleading articles to get clicks, it makes it a lot more interesting if it sounds like there's a lot of intentionality behind what META is doing.

In reality META has simply not banned or restricted these accounts from monetization. That's it! But that doesn't make for an exciting headline.

That's assuming inaction doesn't have intentionality behind it. Meta has proven many times that its inaction is often intentional.

But also, maybe more importantly, as soon as money changing hands is involved, that's a business transaction and if you aren't watching like a hawk who your business transacts with, then yes that is often assumed intentional (and classically a sign of a bad business) because it shows up in your accounts and impacts your bottom line.

If it's been brought to their attention before and they haven't done anything, then it effectively is intentional.

Did Meta set up the selection criteria for the automated selection system?

The criteria does not make value judgements about the content of the creator. Unless they are banned or suspended by the entire platform.

> it was never intended to create some vast ARR revenue stream or reframe the way people look at AI. If Meta wanted to exploit it for personal success then they had lots of opportunities to do so.

They release the base model as open source, everyone uses it. They make a paid version, no one uses it.

They make no money from the open source version, they get no social credit from it. Where is the benefit to having an open source model?

> Where is the benefit to having an open source model?

Research. Llama is and was a research project, intended for researchers. You could make this same critique of Microsoft's Phi model, Apple's OpenELM or OpenAI's OSS. None of them were intended to be kingkillers, all of them are experimental in nature.

You might not have followed the space at the time, but there was a real race to implement the transformer architecture with fewer overall parameters than GPT-2 and GPT-3. Llama was revolutionary for sticking the landing without being entirely lobotomized, the "benefit" was that the model was usable on a local machine. Contemporary projects like Flan-T5 and GPT-J/GPT-Neo were entirely displaced, Meta's AI mindshare went ballistic for a few months and probably propped up billions in exit liquidity for executives and former employees.