Some moves are purely altruistic. Some moves are semi-altruistic - they don't harm the company, but help it increase its reputation or even just allows them to offer people ways to help in order to retain talent. (Which is also kind of strategic, but in a different way.)
Also, some things are just mistakes and miscalculations.
Following the analogy : Meta is arming the Open source community with okish (but in comparison to the soviets and Americans shoddy) weapons and push the third position politically.
Amazon meanwhile is basically a neutral arms manufacturer with AWS, and Nvidia owns the patent on "the projectile"
I'm not trying to biting the hand that arms me - so thank you very much Meta and Mister Zuckerberg.
Now someone, somewhere can create this eras version of Linux, hopefully under this eras version of the GPL.
But Meta partnered with Microsoft for Llama 2.
But yes I forced the analogy a bit hard :)
Like what?
Google's privacy policy, for example, was updated stealthfully to let them claim rights over every piece of IP you post on the internet that their crawlers can get to
This is a nonsense. They added a disclaimer basically warning that LLMs might learn some of your personal data from the public web, because that’s part of the training data. A privacy policy is not a contract that you agree to, it’s just a notice of where/when your data is handled.
“we use publicly available information to help train Google’s AI models”
That’s it.
The point being that such public information might include personal data about you and that’s fair game, it falls outside of the privacy policy. It’s not a novel claim, just a statement of fact.
If I buy a TV, and the store has me sign a receipt that says I agree to their privacy policy by shopping there. Then that’s fine. I don’t need to agree to any future revisions unless I go back to buy more electronics from them.
But also, nothing wrong with making money by building valuable new things.
> “Wonderful for the world” = “I can [use] this to make money”
Doesn't change the meaning (or the bite) of the statement in the slightest.
I believe companies open source their research efforts as a thing to point to when regulators come so they can say "look at all the good our cash-faucet monopoly provides the economy!!"
It is interesting to ponder to what extent this is just a strategic move by Meta to make more money in the end, but whatever the answer to that, it doesn't change how much I appreciate them doing it.
When AWS launched, I was similarly appreciative, as it made a lot of work a lot easier and affordable. The fact AWS made Amazon money didn't lower my appreciation of them for making AWS exist.