The bureaucracy crew will win, they are playing the real game, everybody else is wasting effort on doing things like engineering.
The process is inevitable, but whatever. It is just part of our society, companies age and die. Sometimes they course correct temporarily but nothing is permanent.
The you in that example is the Org, or the person leading it. I find that what usually happens is the executive in charge of it all either wises up to the situation or, more commonly, gets replaced by someone with fresh eyes. In any case, it often takes months and years to get to a point of bureaucratic bloat but the corrections can be swift.
I also think on this topic specifically there is so much labor going into low/no ROI projects and it's becoming obvious. That's just like my opinion though, should Meta even be inventing AI or just leveraging other AI products? I think that's likely an open question in their Org - this may be a hint to their latest thoughts on it.
IMHO Meta should be investing/inventing AI. When the AI org was younger it was doing some impressive open source work. Then it bloated and we got Llama 3 and not much since. I don't know if they can recover that earlier magic or if the ship has sailed; there's a good chance the super effective early folks got fed up and left or are burned out by the bureaucracy, but if I were in charge my first move would also be to cut half the department.
I just don’t see how that helps their business at all. Does Llama 3 correlate with any sales? Maybe some momentary market gains as everyone was chasing AI but at some point the people smart enough to avoid built-here stuff will win. They probably are more focused on using AI instead of making it.
The bureaucracy crew will win, they are playing the real game, everybody else is wasting effort on doing things like engineering.
The process is inevitable, but whatever. It is just part of our society, companies age and die. Sometimes they course correct temporarily but nothing is permanent.