←back to thread

293 points rntn | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.637s | source
1. sorokod ◴[] No.44608233[source]
Presumably it is Meta's growth they have in mind.

Edit: from the linked in post, Meta is concerned about the growth of European companies:

"We share concerns raised by these businesses that this over-reach will throttle the development and deployment of frontier AI models in Europe, and stunt European companies looking to build businesses on top of them."

replies(2): >>44608384 #>>44610675 #
2. isodev ◴[] No.44608384[source]
Of course. Skimming over the AI Code of Practice, there is nothing particularly unexpected or qualifying as “overreach”. Of course, to be compliant, model providers can’t be shady which perhaps conflicts with Meta’s general way of work.
3. t0mas88 ◴[] No.44610675[source]
Sure, but Meta saying "We share concerns raised by these businesses" translates to: It is in our and only our benefit for PR reasons to agree with someone, we don't care who they are, we don't give a fuck, but just this second it sounds great to use them for our lobbying.

Meta has never done and will never do anything in the general public's interest. All they care about is harvesting more data to sell more ads.

replies(1): >>44616995 #
4. VWWHFSfQ ◴[] No.44616995[source]
> has never done and will never do anything in the general public's interest

I'm no Meta apologist, but haven't they been at the forefront of open-source AI development? That seems to be in the "general public's interest".

Obviously they also have a business to run, so their public benefit can only go so far before they start running afoul of their fiduciary responsibilities.