During the recent earnings call, Mark Zuckerberg answered a question from Eric Sheridan of Goldman Sachs on Meta's AI strategy, opportunities to integrate into products, and why they open source models and how it would benefit their business.

I found the reasoning to be very sound and promising for the OSS and AI community.

The biggest risk from AI, in my opinion, is not the doomsday scenarios that intuitively come to mind but rather that the most powerful AI systems will only be accessible to the most powerful and resourceful corporations.

Quote copied from Ben Thompson's write up on Meta's earning in his Stratechery blog post which goes beyond AI. It's behind a paywall but I highly recommend it personally.

Some noteworthy quotes that signal the thought process at Meta FAIR and more broadly

• We’re just playing a different game on the infrastructure than companies like Google or Microsoft or Amazon
• We would aspire to and hope to make even more open than that. So, we’ll need to figure out a way to do that.
• ...lead us to do more work in terms of open sourcing, some of the lower level models and tools
• Open sourcing low level tools make the way we run all this infrastructure more efficient over time.
• On PyTorch: It’s generally been very valuable for us to provide that because now all of the best developers across the industry are using tools that we’re also using internally.
• I would expect us to be pushing and helping to build out an open ecosystem.

For all the negative that comes out of the popular discourse on Meta, I think their work to open source key tech tools over the last 10 years has been exceptional, here's hoping it continues into this decade of AI and pushes other tech giants to also realize the benefits of Open Source.

Full Transcript:

Right now most of the companies that are training large language models have business models that lead them to a closed approach to development. I think there’s an important opportunity to help create an open ecosystem. If we can help be a part of this, then much of the industry will standardize on using these open tools and help improve them further. So this will make it easier for other companies to integrate with our products and platforms as we enable more integrations, and that will help our products stay at the leading edge as well.
Our approach to AI and our infrastructure has always been fairly open. We open source many of our state of the art models so people can experiment and build with them. This quarter we released our LLaMa LLM to researchers. It has 65 billion parameters but outperforms larger models and has proven quite popular. We’ve also open-sourced three other groundbreaking visual models along with their training data and model weights — Segment Anything, DinoV2, and our Animated Drawings tool — and we’ve gotten positive feedback on all of those as well.
I think that there’s an important distinction between the products we offer and a lot of the technical infrastructure, especially the software that we write to support that. And historically, whether it’s the Open Compute project that we’ve done or just open sourcing a lot of the infrastructure that we’ve built, we’ve historically open sourced a lot of that infrastructure, even though we haven’t open sourced the code for our core products or anything like that.
And the reason why I think why we do this is that unlike some of the other companies in the space, we’re not selling a cloud computing service where we try to keep the different software infrastructure that we’re building proprietary. For us, it’s way better if the industry standardizes on the basic tools that we’re using and therefore we can benefit from the improvements that others make and others’ use of those tools can, in some cases like Open Compute, drive down the costs of those things which make our business more efficient too. So I think to some degree we’re just playing a different game on the infrastructure than companies like Google or Microsoft or Amazon, and that creates different incentives for us.
So overall, I think that that’s going to lead us to do more work in terms of open sourcing, some of the lower level models and tools. But of course, a lot of the product work itself is going to be specific and integrated with the things that we do. So it’s not that everything we do is going to be open. Obviously, a bunch of this needs to be developed in a way that creates unique value for our products, but I think in terms of the basic models, I would expect us to be pushing and helping to build out an open ecosystem here, which I think is something that’s going to be important.
On the AI tools, and we have a bunch of history here, right? So if you if you look at what we’ve done with PyTorch, for example, which has generally become the standard in the industry as a tool that a lot of folks who are building AI models and different things in that space use, it’s generally been very valuable for us to provide that because now all of the best developers across the industry are using tools that we’re also using internally. So the tool chain is the same. So when they create some innovation, we can easily integrate it into the things that we’re doing. When we improve something, it improves other products too. Because it’s integrated with our technology stack, when there are opportunities to make integrations with products, it’s much easier to make sure that developers and other folks are compatible with the things that we need in the way that our systems work.
So there are a lot of advantages, but I view this more as a kind of back end infrastructure advantage with potential integrations on the product side, but one that should hopefully enable us to stay at the leading edge and integrate more broadly with the community and also make the way we run all this infrastructure more efficient over time. There are a number of models. I just gave PyTorch as an example. Open Compute is another model that has worked really well for us in this way, both to incorporate both innovation and scale efficiency into our own infrastructure.
So I think that there’s, our incentives I think are basically aligned towards moving in this direction. Now that said, there’s a lot to figure out, right? So when you asked if there are going to be other opportunities, I hope so. I can’t speak to what all those things might be now. This is all quite early in getting developed. The better we do at the foundational work, the more opportunities I think that will come and present themselves. So I think that that’s all stuff that we need to figure out. But at least at the base level, I think we’re generally incentivized to move in this direction. And we also need to figure out how to go in that direction over time.
I mean, I mentioned LLaMA before and I also want to be clear that while I’m talking about helping contribute to an open ecosystem, LLaMA is a model that we only really made available to researchers and there’s a lot of really good stuff that’s happening there. But a lot of the work that we’re doing, I think, we would aspire to and hope to make even more open than that. So, we’ll need to figure out a way to do that.