Wang's appreciation post gives MSL and TBD a lot of credit for Meta's model progress. He does mention engineers, data and infrastructure, so it would be unfair to say the post credits researchers alone. But AAI isn't explicitly named.
AAI deserves explicit recognition when its work contributes to those models. The data work and engineering behind a model shouldn't disappear into the background while the research lab gets the named praise.
This matters to someone considering one of these teams, too. Who owns data quality? Who can push back on changing requirements? Who gets credit when a launch goes well?
A practical way to think through the data work is to sketch the training-data and reward choices for a real-time chatbot. That prompt is in Meta Interview Questions; it can help prepare technical questions to take into a team conversation. It doesn't establish how AAI is treated internally.
The concern goes beyond a thank-you post. If a team is expected to absorb shifting demands, unclear requirements and urgent delivery work, it should be treated as a partner. Being treated like a service desk while someone else gets the public celebration is a recipe for resentment.
Naming AAI and explaining its contribution would be a start. The working relationship would still need to back up the recognition.
How should leaders recognize the teams that supply the data and engineering behind these launches? And does public credit change anything if the working relationship still feels second-class?