Supposedly it was named "caml" because the author was a smoker who enjoyed camel cigarettes, hence the joke that [later implementations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caml#History) were named "Caml Light" and "Caml Special Light"
This is more or less my belief too. But I think there are probably domains/companies where the "promo video" is actually good enough to ship (or at least, where that's the quality that devs were shipping before)
People don't write blog posts about how they wake up at 3AM to assign new tasks to their intern, nor do they build "orchestration frameworks" that involve N layers of interns passing tasks down between eachother
Also the process sounds like a nightmare: "it broke and I asked 4 different LLMs to fix it; my `AGENTS.md` file contained hundreds of special cases; etc." I thought this article was intended to be a horror story, not an advertisement
So you would say that if FB fails to censor a video titled "vaccines cause autism" that drives engagement, they are more morally culpable for the content than if Google spends TPU cycles rendering the Imagen prompt input: "detailed video about why vaccines cause autism, scientific, realistic, in the style of a public health announcement"
I think it's a hard problem and I'm not sure what the right solution is; clearly extremism is a problem but I can't say I'm 100% happy with Facebook being the final judge of Truth.
Regardless, though, it is unambiguous that FB's role in "making" problematic UGC is much less direct than Google's role in making Imagen outputs.
Wrongfully or not, people blame Facebook for inflammatory content posted by humans on their platform. How much worse would it be if that content was generated with FB-trained models?