{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreih3qohm6yje5alglisejnaseajjtyvqeiuxh275doqs3rkhkxqduy",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:wz4a6zqjyyydgrncn6zajuyr/app.bsky.feed.post/3lstspxyydzw2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreibpeqd724xr6pbyunlqpfhag3kjn2yfd3gcms42qqvicobapetx7e"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/png",
    "size": 1383083
  },
  "description": "The writing isn't just on the wall for Llama, it's on the new paychecks...",
  "path": "/metas-open-source-ai-mistake/",
  "publishedAt": "2025-06-30T18:26:47.000Z",
  "site": "https://spyglass.org",
  "tags": [
    "the talk of $100M signing bonuses or offers or both or whatever",
    "Obviously, that wasn't true.",
    "Subscribe now"
  ],
  "textContent": "With all the talk of $100M signing bonuses or offers or both or whatever, we're looking right past the issue of \"why\". That is, why does Mark Zuckerberg have to offer such incredible amounts of money to convince people to come over to work on Meta's new \"Superintelligence\" team? You keep hearing that it's the market and it's crazy right now. But that's mainly true because _it's Meta who are the ones setting this market_!\n\nAgain, why?\n\nThe high level answer is obvious: they need to play catch up. But for months and months seemingly all we've heard out of Meta is how much their products are \"killing it\" and they're the leaders in AI. Obviously, that wasn't true. But again, why? Seemingly part of it was a fundamental bet which Zuckerberg made that may have backfired. That is, the bet on open source.\n\n### This post is for subscribers only\n\nBecome a member to get access to all content\n\nSubscribe now",
  "title": "Meta's Open Source AI Mistake",
  "updatedAt": "2026-03-26T11:18:05.750Z"
}