As the Socrates said, one must commoditize the complement.
I am not entirely convinced that this was Meta's reasoning for releasing Llama. Like, I think Zuck is not thinking along these lines while open srcing LLMs.
How is Llama a complement of Meta's products? Meta wants more social interaction. It's a big stretch to assume LLMs will lead to more shareable social content (unless meta wants AI bots, in which case they don't need LLMs; they can just relax their moderation policies).
I honestly still don't have any good explanations for releasing Llama. Even the explanation of Meta gaining value from public improvements to Llama seems too vague and a stretch. Meta has enough engineers to make the most useful improvements themselves. The cost and effort of open srcing Llama is >> the value Meta gains from public improvements of Llama.
So, yeah this is still an open ques for me...
The cost of keeping their business (in the 'supposed' event) is the cost of developing and open sourcing some good LLMs, which is pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things.
I’m guessing y’all are both being facetious :)