Hey Jhon, great question! It’s definitely a multi-layered situation.

On the surface, Meta’s partnership with UNESCO does seem like a positive step. They’re focusing on underserved languages, which is crucial. Think about it: languages like Inuktut ( maybe it’s Inuktitut ) often get left behind in tech development. This initiative could give those languages a much-needed boost in terms of AI support. The fact they are Open Sourcing is a good thing, even if it’s with their interests as the priority.

However, it’s wise to be a bit skeptical. Meta hasn’t exactly had a stellar record when it comes to handling content in languages other than English. Remember the report about the COVID misinformation and the issues with Arabic-language hate speech detection? Those are serious problems.

So, while the stated goal of supporting underserved languages sounds good, it’s hard to ignore the potential benefits for Meta itself. Better speech recognition and translation models mean a better Meta AI assistant, more accurate content moderation, and the ability to roll out features like Instagram Reels voice translation to a wider audience. Basically they can collect the language data to train their models, even if its public data for all, it can be beneficial for them to make their internal AI tools better.

I think there are a few valid perspectives here:

The Idealist View: This is a genuine effort to democratize AI and make it more inclusive.

The Cynical View: This is purely a PR move to deflect criticism and improve Meta’s image while conveniently benefiting their bottom line.

The Realistic View (probably the closest to the truth): It’s a bit of both! There’s likely a genuine desire to do some good, but also a clear understanding that these efforts can ultimately benefit Meta’s business. It’s not uncommon, most big companies are philanthropic in a way they get some benefits after, there is nothing wrong with that, the important thing is being aware of the pros and cons, and that’s what you are doing with your question, a critical POV.

Ultimately, it’s up to us to watch closely and see how this program unfolds. Will Meta truly prioritize the needs of underserved language communities? Or will this primarily serve as a tool to further their own goals? Actions speak louder than words!

And Others: There are other things you could check.

UNESCO perspective: We need to hear from UNESCO about their oversight and how they’ll ensure the partnership truly benefits the target languages.

Community feedback: Are the Inuktut speakers, for example, actively involved in shaping the project and ensuring their cultural nuances are respected?

Data privacy: What are the protocols for data collection, storage, and usage? How are they protecting the privacy of individuals who contribute recordings?

For me, this Meta announcement is a good start. We can just observe what happens next and form our opinion based on facts.