Like I said last week. I think zucks original llama thesis is proving more correct by the week. The rent market on intelligence never materialized, if you have THE frontier model, you can charge rent (for a few weeks, maybe month). But after a certain capability level it's price that drives the decision.

Zuck is doing the thing he's really good at, and building a moat around the network (Muse is VERY sticky), and now that we're all going to standardize on Meta's model, we're going to optimize the heck out of the infra to run the model making it cheaper for him to scale, thus bringing in more participants to his network, and thus making his network more valuable.

Meta is going to win consumer AI.

[delayed]

The model license requires large inference providers to contact Meta separately to obtain a license to serve the model. I know we've seen this before with other large models, but it's still a bit irritating.

The usual effect of separate licensing is decreased price competition from public providers (like we saw with Kimi K3). I guess it's better for the providers if the price is fixed: any efficiency improvements directly improve margin rather than driving prices down over time. Still, to provide my own anecdata, the main thing keeping me on a paid subscription is token costs for the more capable models.

great, I've been reading series of papers related to open source/open weight LLM Backdoors.

It's 100% possible, curious when will be the first incident.

Having something built by entity with HQ in the wester world is always a bit safer. That could be mistral, but they decided to be a consultancy company, not an ai lab.