Meta Considers Shutting Down Open-Source Behemoth AI Model
Meta Considers Historic Shift from Open-Source AI Strategy
Meta's newly formed Superintelligence Lab is debating abandoning its open-source Behemoth AI model—a potential reversal of the company's long-standing commitment to open AI development. According to internal discussions reported by The New York Times, Chief AI Officer Alexandr Wang and team members favor developing closed models instead. This follows repeated delays in releasing Behemoth due to underwhelming performance benchmarks and internal testing issues[^1^][16][^2^][38].
Why This Strategic Pivot Matters
Meta built its AI reputation on open-source leadership, releasing Llama models that became foundational for developers worldwide. A closed approach would grant Meta greater commercialization control amid its $100+ billion AI infrastructure investment. However, it risks alienating developers who rely on open models like Llama—and ceding ground to China's DeepSeek, which used Meta's open code to advance its own AI[^3^][16][^4^][30].
Leadership Divisions Emerge
- Pro-Closed Faction: Led by Wang, argues closed models enable faster monetization and safety controls. Meta's $14B investment in Scale AI signals commercial priorities[^5^][39].
- Pro-Open Faction: Includes Chief Scientist Yann LeCun, who publicly insists 'the platform that wins will be open'[^6^][19].
- Zuckerberg's Stance: Remains ambiguous, though he previously admitted he 'hasn’t committed to releasing every single thing' Meta develops[^7^][16].
Industry Implications
A closed pivot would destabilize the open-source ecosystem, where over 500,000 developers fine-tune Llama-based models. Startups like Mistral that champion open AI could gain influence, while OpenAI prepares its long-delayed open model release[^8^][16][^9^][38]. Chinese labs like Moonshot AI may fill the void left by Meta, accelerating their global reach[^10^][16].
The Stakes for Meta's AI Future
Meta faces dual pressures: investors demand returns on its $68B annual AI spend, while researchers warn closed models could slow innovation. As DeepSeek founder Alex Cunha noted, 'Openness fuels progress; restrictions only delay rivals temporarily'[^11^][19][^12^][29]. Behemoth's fate—now indefinitely delayed—may decide whether Meta leads or follows in the superintelligence race.
Social Pulse: How X and Reddit View Meta's Open-Source Retreat
Dominant Opinions
-
Pro-Strategic Shift (48%):
- @AlexandrWang: 'Safety and competitiveness require controlled deployment. Not every model benefits from openness.'
- r/MachineLearning post: 'If Behemoth underperforms, releasing it helps no one. Meta owes the community quality, not dogma.'
-
Critics of Hypocrisy (42%):
- @ylecun: 'This contradicts everything we championed. Openness accelerates safety through scrutiny—closed models create black boxes.'
- r/artificial thread: 'Zuckerberg touted ‘Open source is the path forward’ last year. Now $ talks? Trillion-dollar bait-and-switch.'
-
Neutral/Pragmatic (10%):
- @sama: ‘Every lab balances openness and control. Meta’s calculus reflects competitive realities, not philosophy.’
Overall Sentiment
48% support Meta's shift as commercially necessary, while 42% condemn it as abandonment of principles. Notable is LeCun’s public dissent—rare in corporate AI—signaling deep internal divisions.