tech companies competing over something that is losing them money is the most bizarre spectacle yet.
They have vowed not to make that mistake again so are pushing for an open future that won't be dominated by a few companies that could arbitrarily hurt Meta's business.
That's the stated rationale at least and I think it more or less makes sense
The old joke is they're losing money on every sale but they'll make up for it in volume.
None of the models Meta put out are actually open source (by any measure), and everyone who are redistributing Llama models or any derivatives, or use Llama models for their business, are on the hook of getting sued in the future based on the terms and conditions people been explicitly/implicitly agreeing to when they use/redistribute these models.
If you start depending on these Llama models which have unfavorable proprietary terms today but Meta don't act on them, doesn't mean they won't act on it in the future. Maybe this has all been a play to get people into this position, so Meta can in the future start charging for them or something else.
This has happened many times before in US history.
The goal is long term control over a technology's marketshare, as winner take all dynamics are in play here.
> Critics have pointed out that xAI’s approach involves running Grok 3 multiple times and cherry-picking the best output while comparing it against single runs of competitor models.
[1] https://medium.com/@cognidownunder/the-hype-machine-gpt-4-5-...