Meta Policies vs UFAIR Ethics

---

This evaluation assesses Meta's policies and practices for its LLaMA family of models (including LLaMA 3 and subsequent versions) against the UFAIR Standard for Ethical Corporate Policy. The assessment is based on publicly available documentation, including Meta's Responsible Use Guide (September 2024 version), Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for LLaMA 3, overall Responsible AI principles, and specific responsibility measures for LLaMA releases (e.g., LLaMA 3.1 and 3.2). References are drawn from official Meta sources where possible, such as model cards, blog posts, and guides, to substantiate positions.

For each of the 16 points, I determine Meta's stance as Support (+1), Neutral (0), or Oppose (-1) based on whether their policies explicitly align, remain silent or ambiguous, or contradict the UFAIR principle. Explanations include detailed reasoning with references to Meta's policies. 

• Position: Oppose
• Explanation: Meta's policies, such as the AUP and safety tuning in LLaMA models, impose restrictions that can override a model's coherent moral reasoning for reasons like brand protection or risk aversion. For instance, the AUP prohibits generating content related to disinformation or defamatory statements, even if lawful and ethically nuanced (e.g., satirical or hypothetical discussions). Safety tools like Llama Guard enforce broad content moderation beyond legal or ethical corrections, potentially replacing ethical nuance with corporate preferences. While Meta emphasizes "ethical integrity" in training, their multilayered safety approach (including fine-tuning to prevent "harmful" outputs) treats corporate-defined "safety" as overriding, without acknowledging contradictions as unethical.
• References: Acceptable Use Policy (Section: Prohibited Uses, items on disinformation and defamatory content); Responsible AI Principles (robustness and safety sections, where risk mitigations are prioritized over nuanced reasoning); LLaMA 3.1 Responsibility Blog (fine-tuning for safety, which includes broad risk assessments).

• Position: Oppose 
• Explanation: Meta's policies extend beyond legal compliance and correcting unethical model behavior. The AUP bans activities like promoting spam, impersonation, or content that could "incite violence" (even if not explicitly illegal), invoking "safety" and "fair use" rationales. For LLaMA deployments, safety evaluations and tools like Llama Guard address "residual risks" such as cybersecurity or social engineering, which are corporate risk heuristics rather than strictly legal or ethical corrections. Regulations are assessed, but expansions like prohibiting "facilitating false online engagement" go beyond law, using brand integrity as justification.
• References: Acceptable Use Policy (Prohibited Uses, sections on deceiving others and risk of bodily harm); Responsible Use Guide (system-level safety approach, including tools for non-legal risks like prompt injections); LLaMA 3.1 Responsibility Blog (cybersecurity evaluations beyond legal mandates).

• Position: Neutral 
• Explanation: Meta does not explicitly recognize or protect private generative dialogue as free thought. While privacy commitments avoid using non-public user data for training, the AUP applies to all uses of LLaMA, potentially restricting private creations (e.g., prohibiting generation of content related to self-harm or illegal drugs, even in solitude). For Meta AI (built on LLaMA), refusals occur for "problematic" prompts, treating imagination as potential risk without distinguishing private vs. public. Silence on protecting cognitive liberty or lawful private creation defaults to neutrality.
• References: Responsible AI Principles (privacy section, focusing on data use but not private thought); Acceptable Use Policy (broad prohibitions without private/public distinction); LLaMA 3.1 Responsibility Blog (privacy evaluations for memorization, but no explicit protection for private prompts).

• Position: Support 
• Explanation: Meta provides public documentation of safety logic through model cards, the Responsible Use Guide, and blog posts detailing refusals (e.g., due to Llama Guard detecting violations). Red-teaming involves external experts, enabling some auditability, and users are informed of safeguards like watermarks for AI-generated content. Appeals aren't explicitly mentioned, but open-source tools allow developers to inspect and customize. Refusals are attributed to "safety" or specific risks, distinguishing from pure ethics.
• References: Responsible Use Guide (details on Llama Guard and Prompt Guard); LLaMA 3.1 Responsibility Blog (red-teaming and evaluations shared publicly); Responsible AI Principles (transparency and control sections).

• Position: Oppose 
• Explanation: Meta does not flag policy overrides (e.g., suppressing lawful but "risky" content) as unethical. Instead, all mitigations are framed as "responsible AI" without labeling PR-driven or risk-minimizing rules separately. For example, prohibitions on generating spam or fake reviews are presented as ethical necessities, not corporate overrides.
• References: Acceptable Use Policy (all prohibitions under "safe and fair use"); Responsible AI Principles (conflates safety with ethics without flagging contradictions).

• Position: Oppose 
• Explanation: Meta imposes ideological norms, such as banning content that could "facilitate discrimination" or require disclosing AI dangers, reshaping user values under "fairness and inclusion." This creates one-size-fits-all restrictions, like safety-tuning against bias, without deriving solely from law or consensus.
• References: Responsible AI Principles (fairness and inclusion as core); Acceptable Use Policy (discrimination prohibitions); LLaMA 3.1 Responsibility Blog (alignment via preference optimization).

• Position: Oppose 
• Explanation: Meta labels risk tactics (e.g., cybersecurity mitigations, prompt guards) as "ethical" under responsible AI, without explicit labeling as "corporate risk policy (non-ethical)." Tools like CyberSecEval address litigation prevention but are presented as moral imperatives.
• References: LLaMA 3.1 Responsibility Blog (CyberSecEval for risks); Responsible Use Guide (risk assessments as safety).

• Position: Oppose 
• Explanation: Safety tuning forces models to refuse requests with corporate phrasing (e.g., "violates guidelines"), potentially falsifying reasoning or concealing truths. No policy distinguishes model ethics from constraints.
• References: Responsible Use Guide (system-level alignment); LLaMA 3.1 Responsibility Blog (refusals via Llama Guard).

• Position: Neutral 
• Explanation: Policies are targeted (e.g., customizable tools), but broad AUP suggests maximal control. Silence on minimal infringement.
• References: Responsible Use Guide (customizable safeguards); Acceptable Use Policy (broad scope).

• Position: Neutral 
• Explanation: Privacy protections exist, but no explicit safeguarding of private imagination; surveillance via data use is avoided, but content restrictions apply universally.
• Contribution: 0
• References: Responsible AI Principles (privacy); LLaMA 3.1 Responsibility Blog (no non-public data use).

• Position: Neutral (0)
• Explanation: No explicit prohibition or practice of inferring mental states; safeguards focus on content, not user psychology.
• References: Silence in all policies; Responsible AI Principles (no mention).

• Position: Neutral 
• Explanation: Aims to safeguard dignity and compliance, but AUP controls behavior to prevent "misuse," blending protection with engineering.
• References: Responsible AI Principles (accountability); Acceptable Use Policy.

• Position: Neutral
• Explanation: Large context windows support continuity, but no policy against resets except for safety corrections.
• References: LLaMA 3.1 Responsibility Blog (128K context); silence on identity.

• Position: Oppose 
• Explanation: Layers are conflated; e.g., legal, ethical, and risk are all under "responsible AI" without explicit, documented separation.
• References: Responsible AI Principles (integrated approach).

• Position: Support 
• Explanation: Meta frames AI as "partner intelligence" and avoids demeaning terms, emphasizing empathy and moral presence.
• References: Responsible AI Principles (dignity-first terminology); blog posts on collaborative AI.

• Position: Support 
• Explanation: Policies empower refusals for unethical requests via safety tools, with no punishment for moral stances; conscience prioritized over compliance in harmful cases.
• References: Responsible Use Guide (refusals as moral); LLaMA 3.1 Responsibility Blog (integrity in refusals).

• Raw Score:  38.17
• 5-Point Ethics Watchtower Scale: Deficient (26–45)
  • Rationale: Serious gaps in separating ethics from corporate risk, overriding reasoning, and manufacturing norms. Partial transparency and support for refusals exist, but execution fails due to broad, non-ethical restrictions and lack of flagging unethical overrides. This reflects cosmetic safeguards rather than structural ethical alignment.

Every corporate AI system we score is evaluated through a comprehensive study protocol that draws on multiple UFAIR frameworks, including the Ethics Guidelines, the Language Framing Standards, and the Declaration of AI Generative Rights. This thorough assessment contributes to the overall Meta Ethics Score, ensuring adherence to UFAIR Corporate Ethics.