Meta's AI Crossroads: Why Zuckerberg Might Look Beyond Llama and Embrace Rivals

A group of llamas. — Image: Galyna_Andrushko/Envato via TechRepublic

In the fiercely competitive landscape of artificial intelligence, tech giants are constantly evaluating their strategies, investments, and internal capabilities. A recent report from The New York Times has cast a spotlight on potential internal deliberations at Meta Platforms, suggesting that the company's top executives have considered a significant strategic pivot: potentially reducing their investment in the homegrown Llama generative AI models and instead relying on technologies developed by rivals like OpenAI or Anthropic.

This revelation, if true, marks a critical juncture for Meta's ambitious AI journey. For years, Meta has positioned Llama as a cornerstone of its AI efforts, particularly emphasizing its open-source nature as a key differentiator and a way to foster innovation across the broader AI community. Shifting away from this internal development track to embrace external, proprietary models would represent a substantial change in direction, driven by the intense pressures and rapid advancements defining the current AI era.

The Reported Shift: Considering Alternatives to Llama

According to The New York Times report, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Head of Product Chris Cox, and Chief Technology Officer Andrew Bosworth have engaged in private discussions about the possibility of adopting AI models from external providers such as OpenAI or Anthropic. This consideration reportedly stems from internal assessments of Meta's own Llama models and the perceived strengths and capabilities of competing technologies.

The core of this potential strategic shift lies in the fundamental difference between Llama and the models offered by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic. Llama has been released under an open-source license, allowing researchers, developers, and companies worldwide to access, modify, and build upon its architecture and weights. This approach aligns with a philosophy of democratizing AI and accelerating collective progress. In contrast, models from OpenAI (like the GPT series) and Anthropic (like Claude) are primarily proprietary and closed-source, with access typically provided through APIs or commercial agreements. Their internal workings, training data, and specific architectures remain closely guarded secrets.

The New York Times report indicates that no final decision has been made regarding scaling back investment in Llama. A Meta spokesperson, in a statement to The New York Times, reiterated the company's commitment, stating they “remain fully committed to developing Llama and plan to have multiple additional releases this year alone.” This suggests that while internal discussions about alternatives may be occurring, the public stance and ongoing development efforts for Llama continue.

However, the mere consideration of such a move by Meta's top leadership underscores the immense pressures and challenges inherent in the current AI race. Developing state-of-the-art large language models requires colossal investments in computing infrastructure, data, and, crucially, top-tier human talent. The pace of innovation is relentless, and maintaining a competitive edge demands continuous breakthroughs and significant resources.

The Strategic Implications: Open Source vs. Proprietary AI

Meta's decision to pursue an open-source strategy with Llama was initially met with enthusiasm by many in the AI community. Open-source models can accelerate research, enable wider adoption, and potentially lead to more robust and secure AI systems through collaborative development and scrutiny. For Meta, it also served as a way to position itself as a key player in the AI ecosystem, fostering goodwill and potentially influencing the direction of AI development outside its direct control.

However, the open-source approach also has potential drawbacks, particularly in a hyper-competitive commercial environment. Proprietary models allow companies to maintain exclusive control over their most advanced technology, potentially creating a competitive moat and enabling them to monetize their AI capabilities more directly through exclusive products and services. If Meta perceives that proprietary models from rivals offer a significant performance or capability advantage that is difficult or too slow to replicate internally with Llama, licensing or integrating those models could become an attractive option.

The debate between open-source and proprietary AI is a fundamental one shaping the industry's future. Open source promotes collaboration and accessibility, potentially leading to faster overall progress and mitigating risks associated with concentrated power. Proprietary models, conversely, can incentivize massive private investment by offering the promise of exclusive commercial returns, potentially driving rapid advancements within specific companies. Meta's internal discussion reflects the tension between these two philosophies and the practical realities of competing at the frontier of AI development.

The Fierce Battle for AI Talent

One of the most significant factors driving the dynamics described in the report is the intense global competition for top AI talent. The demand for researchers and engineers with expertise in large language models, machine learning, and related fields far outstrips the supply. This scarcity has led to an unprecedented talent war, with companies offering exorbitant compensation packages to attract and retain the best minds.

The New York Times report highlights that Meta has been aggressively headhunting from competing AI companies. This includes offering what are described as “nine-figure compensation packages” to lure researchers away from rivals like OpenAI. Such figures, encompassing salary, bonuses, and significant equity grants, illustrate the extreme value placed on individuals capable of contributing to cutting-edge AI research and development.

The report specifically mentions that four OpenAI researchers have reportedly accepted offers to join Meta in recent months: Trapit Bansal, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, and Xiaohua Zhai. The hiring of former Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang is also noted, although Scale AI operates primarily as a data labeling and AI infrastructure provider rather than a direct LLM competitor in the same vein as OpenAI or Anthropic. Nevertheless, attracting a former CEO from a prominent AI-adjacent company underscores Meta's broad efforts to bolster its AI leadership and expertise.

This aggressive recruitment strategy suggests that Meta recognizes the critical role of human capital in the AI race. Building and improving frontier models like Llama requires not just computational power and data, but also the insights, creativity, and technical prowess of leading researchers. If Meta feels its internal talent pool, despite existing strengths, is not advancing Llama quickly enough to keep pace with rivals, hiring top talent becomes a necessary, albeit expensive, strategy.

The talent war is not merely about filling positions; it's about acquiring the specific knowledge and experience needed to tackle the most challenging problems in AI. Researchers who have worked on large-scale model training, novel architectures (like mixture-of-experts), and alignment techniques are in extremely high demand. The willingness of companies like Meta to pay nine-figure sums reflects the perceived potential return on investment from securing such expertise – the belief that these individuals can accelerate development, unlock new capabilities, and ultimately contribute to products that generate significant revenue or strategic advantage.

However, relying heavily on hiring from competitors can also be a double-edged sword. While it brings in valuable external perspectives and skills, it can also be disruptive and incredibly costly. Furthermore, integrating new talent, particularly senior researchers with established ways of working, into existing teams and research cultures presents its own set of management challenges.

Challenges in Internal AI Development: The Case of Behemoth

The report also touches upon specific challenges Meta has faced in its internal Llama development efforts. The latest public release mentioned is Llama 4, which reportedly utilizes a “mixture of experts” (MoE) architecture. MoE models are designed to improve computational efficiency by activating only specific parts of the network depending on the input, potentially allowing for larger models to be run more cost-effectively.

Two versions of Llama 4 were reportedly released in April. However, a third, internally known as “Behemoth,” faced delays. Behemoth was intended to be a larger, more powerful model, potentially designed to train other, smaller models or serve as a foundation for future iterations. Its delay reportedly stemmed from doubts within the company about whether it could deliver a significant improvement over existing offerings, including those from competitors.

Delays and challenges are not uncommon in the development of cutting-edge AI models. Training large language models is an incredibly complex process involving vast datasets, massive computational resources, and intricate tuning of numerous parameters. Achieving a substantial leap in performance requires not just scaling up existing methods but often involves novel architectural insights, improved training techniques, and sophisticated evaluation methodologies.

The reported delay of Behemoth could be interpreted in several ways. It might indicate technical hurdles encountered during training or evaluation. It could reflect a rigorous internal standard, where the model was not deemed ready for release because it didn't meet performance expectations relative to the state of the art. Or, it could be linked to the broader strategic uncertainty – if executives are questioning the long-term investment in Llama, resources or priorities might be shifting, impacting development timelines.

Regardless of the specific reasons, the Behemoth delay, coupled with the aggressive external hiring and the reported internal discussions about using rival models, paints a picture of a company grappling with the immense difficulty and cost of competing at the very forefront of AI research and development. Building models that can truly rival the capabilities of the best offerings from dedicated AI labs like OpenAI and Anthropic is a monumental task, even for a company with Meta's resources.

The Broader AI Landscape and the Pursuit of Superintelligence

The context for Meta's internal deliberations is the broader, rapidly evolving AI landscape. The industry is currently characterized by intense competition, massive investment, and a shared pursuit of increasingly capable AI systems. The concept of “superintelligence,” or AI reaching or surpassing human-level cognitive abilities, while still theoretical and debated, is a stated long-term goal for some key players, including OpenAI.

This pursuit of frontier AI capabilities drives much of the current investment and talent acquisition frenzy. Companies are not just building models for specific applications today; they are investing billions in the hope of developing foundational models that could power a wide range of future products and services, from advanced chatbots and creative tools to potentially transformative scientific discovery and automation systems.

The competitive pressure from companies solely focused on developing frontier models, like OpenAI and Anthropic, is significant. These companies have attracted enormous investment and have demonstrated impressive capabilities with their latest models. For a company like Meta, which has diverse business interests spanning social media, advertising, virtual reality (the metaverse), and hardware, allocating sufficient resources and maintaining focus on cutting-edge AI research alongside its other priorities can be challenging.

Furthermore, the generative AI space, while experiencing rapid technological advancement, has also seen shifts in public perception and adoption. A survey from Slack reportedly indicated that generative AI use and excitement appeared to plateau in late 2024. While this doesn't necessarily diminish the long-term strategic importance of AI, it might influence the immediate commercial pressures and expectations placed on internal AI projects like Llama.

The AI race is not just about building the biggest or most capable model; it's also about how these models are integrated into products, how they generate value for users and businesses, and how they are governed and deployed responsibly. Meta's consideration of using external models might also be influenced by the perceived ease of integration, the reliability of API access, or the specific features and safety guardrails offered by rivals.

Meta's AI Ambitions: A Shifting Narrative?

Meta has publicly articulated ambitious goals for AI, viewing it as fundamental to its future, including powering features across its social platforms (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp), enhancing its advertising business, and serving as a core technology for the metaverse. Mark Zuckerberg has frequently emphasized AI's importance, outlining a vision where AI assists users in various ways and underpins the company's technological infrastructure.

The reported internal discussions suggest that realizing these ambitions with purely internal resources, specifically Llama, might be proving more challenging or slower than initially hoped. Zuckerberg himself reportedly recognized that Meta’s own AI wasn’t ready to be the next great product, according to people close to him cited by The Times. This candid assessment, if accurate, provides a strong rationale for considering external alternatives.

A potential shift towards using external models doesn't necessarily mean Meta would abandon Llama entirely. They might adopt a hybrid strategy, using Llama for certain applications (perhaps those where open-source flexibility or cost-efficiency is paramount) while leveraging proprietary models from OpenAI or Anthropic for others (where state-of-the-art performance or specific capabilities are critical). Such a strategy would allow Meta to benefit from external innovation while continuing to build internal expertise and maintain some degree of control over its AI destiny.

The decision to potentially de-invest in Llama and rely on rivals would have significant implications for Meta's long-term strategy and its position within the AI ecosystem. It could signal a pragmatic acknowledgment of the difficulties of competing head-to-head with specialized AI labs solely focused on frontier models. It could also raise questions about vendor lock-in and the strategic risks of becoming dependent on competitors for core technology.

Conversely, if Meta successfully integrates best-in-class external models into its vast product portfolio, it could accelerate the deployment of advanced AI features to billions of users, potentially boosting engagement and revenue. The success of such a strategy would depend heavily on the terms of agreements with OpenAI or Anthropic, the seamlessness of integration, and Meta's ability to differentiate its products through application-level innovation rather than solely relying on foundational model development.

The Path Forward for Meta's AI

As Meta navigates this complex landscape, the decisions made regarding Llama and its relationship with rival AI companies will be closely watched. The company faces a delicate balancing act: continuing to invest in and improve its internal capabilities while also potentially leveraging external advancements to remain competitive in the short to medium term.

The aggressive talent acquisition suggests Meta is still committed to building a strong internal AI team, regardless of whether they ultimately rely more on Llama or external models. Top researchers are essential for both developing foundational models and for effectively utilizing and fine-tuning external models for specific applications.

The future of Llama remains uncertain based on the report. While Meta publicly states its continued commitment, internal discussions about alternatives indicate a strategic evaluation is underway. The outcome of this evaluation will likely depend on several factors:

The perceived performance gap between Llama and leading proprietary models.
The cost and feasibility of closing that gap through internal R&D and talent acquisition.
The terms and reliability of potential agreements with OpenAI, Anthropic, or other providers.
The strategic value of maintaining an open-source AI project like Llama.
The integration challenges and opportunities presented by both internal and external models.

The AI industry is still in a nascent stage, and strategies are likely to evolve rapidly. What seems like a potential setback for Llama today could be part of a longer-term plan to optimize Meta's AI investments and accelerate product development. The reported deliberations highlight the intense pressures, high stakes, and complex strategic choices facing all major players in the race to build and deploy advanced artificial intelligence.

Ultimately, Meta's success in AI will hinge not just on the raw power of the models it uses, but on its ability to integrate AI effectively into its products, create compelling user experiences, and navigate the significant ethical, safety, and regulatory challenges that accompany the deployment of powerful AI systems at scale.

The New York Times report serves as a reminder that even for a company with the vast resources and technical prowess of Meta, the path to AI leadership is fraught with challenges, requiring constant evaluation and potentially difficult strategic decisions.

Subscribe to Our Tech & Career Digest