Mark Zuckerberg: recommendation

Transcript context

…So Sam Altman recently tweeted that OpenAI is going to release an open-source SOTA reasoning model. I think part of the tweet was that they won’t do anything silly, like say you can only use it if you have less than 700 million users. DeepSeek has the MIT license, whereas I think a couple of the contingencies in the Llama license require you to say "built with Llama" on applications using it or any model that you train using Llama has to begin with the word "Llama." What do you think about the license? Should it be less onerous for developers? Look, we basically pioneered the open-source LLM thing. So I don't consider the license to be onerous. When we were starting to push on open source, there was this big debate in the industry. Is this even a reasonable thing to do? Can you do something that is safe and trustworthy with open source? Will open source ever be able to be competitive enough that anyone will even care? Basically, when we were answering those questions a lot of the hard work was done by the teams at Meta. There were other folks in the industry but really, the Llama models were the ones that broke open this whole open-source AI thing in a huge way. If we’re going to put all this energy into it, then at a minimum, if you're going to have these large cloud companies — like Microsoft and Amazon and Google — turn around and sell our model, then we should at least be able to have a conversation with them before they do that around what kind of business arrangement we should have. Our goal with the license, we're generally not trying to stop people from using the model. We just think that if you're one of those companies, or if you're Apple, just come talk to us about what you want to do. Let's find a productive way to do it together. I think that’s generally been fine. Now, if the whole open-source part of the industry evolves in a direction where there are a lot of other great options and the license ends up being a reason why people don’t want to use Llama, then we’ll have to reevaluate the strategy. What it makes sense to do at that point. But I don’t think we’re there. That’s not, in practice, something we’ve seen, companies coming to us and saying, “We don’t want to use this because your license says if you reach 700 million people, you have to come talk to us.” So far, that’s been more something we’ve heard from open-source purists like, “Is this as clean of an open-source model as you’d like it to be?” That debate has existed since the beginning of open source. All the GPL license stuff versus other things, do you need to make it so that anything that touches open source has to be open source too? Or can people take it and use it in different ways? I'm sure there will continue to be debates around this. But if you’re spending many billions of dollars training these models, I think asking the other companies — the huge ones that are similar in size and can easily afford to have a relationship with us — to talk to us before they use it seems like a pretty reasonable thing. If it turns out that other models are also really good. There’s a bunch of good open-source models. So that part of your mission is fulfilled, and maybe other models are better at coding. Is there a world where you just say, "Look, the open-source ecosystem is healthy. There’s plenty of competition. We're happy to just use some other model, whether it's for internal software engineering at Meta or deploying to our apps. We don't necessarily need to build with Llama"?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.