Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 507 posts

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#301

Post by rlt »

rybosome wrote: post #124
krosaen wrote: post #92

Anyone know what scale does these days beyond labeling tools that would make them this interesting to Meta? Data labeling tools seem more of a traditional software application and not much to do with AI models themselves that would be somewhat easily replicated, but guessing my impression is out of date. Also now apparently their CEO is leaving [1], so the idea that they were super impressed with him doesn't seem to…

Scale has also built massive amounts of proprietary datasets that they license to the big players in training. Meta, Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. all use Scale data in training. So, the play I’m guessing is to shut that tap off for everyone else now, and double down on using Scale to generate more proprietary datasets.

Meta “will have a 49% stake in the artificial intelligence startup, but will not have any voting power”

Wouldn’t Scale’s board/execs still have a fiduciary duty to existing shareholders, not just Meta?

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#303

Post by mjburgess »

Bjorkbat wrote: post #111
laborcontract wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is by all indications the world's most expensive acquihire of a single person. Reporting has been that Zuckerberg has seen Wang as a confidant of sorts, and has proposed a vision of AI that's said to be non consensus.

Fair enough. If you aren't willing to give your friend $14 billion to join your company so you can hang out more, then are you two really friends?

I could see a friend giving me 4% of his net worth on those terms, esp. if i might return a few percent, in the fullness of time.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#304

Post by n2d4 »

gwbas1c wrote: post #273
n2d4 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way does Pixar's IP overshadow Disney's? Listing the highest-grossing media franchises [1], Mickey Mouse, Winnie the Pooh, Star Wars, and Disney Princesses are on #2-#5 respectively, while Pixar's top spot is #16 with Cars. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_media...

Because, in the 1990s, Pixar's IP was more popular than Disney's. The story (as I remember it from a Jobs biography) was that, in the Disney parks, there were longer lines for Pixar characters than Disney characters. Someone in leadership (don't remember the name) basically swallowed pride and bought Pixar from Jobs. It was considered a "reverse acquisition" because Jobs had so much stock he technically controlled Di…

This was certainly true for animated movies in the 2000s (where Pixar clearly dominated), although not the companies as a whole. Pixar shareholders (including Jobs) owned about 15% after the deal.

This isn't a reverse acquisition, it's just a normal acquisition. Company A (Disney) has many things but is missing one thing (an animation team that doesn't suck), so they buy a company that does have that thing.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#305

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

evanelias wrote: post #255
LargeWu wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if this is true any more, but they used to make a majority of their revenue by suing their own customers.

I get that people hate Oracle for a variety of reasons, but this is just such a ridiculous assertion. They've been one of the largest tech companies for multiple decades. Do you honestly believe that a majority of their revenue came from legal settlements from suing their own customers, at any time in their history? Do you have a citation for this claim? I mean if the company is as absurdly litigious as you're saying…

I'd guess it's something to do with Oracle's licensing policies. My understanding is they'd audit businesses who used their software and bill them an additional fee for violations. Maybe it's not strictly legal settlements but it's plausible that they made more money from these fees than from their regular fees at some point and even ongoing today. (That also lines up with jokes I've heard about them hiring more lawyers than software developers given someone's gotta do the audits.)

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#307

Post by eaglelamp »

krosaen wrote: post #92

Anyone know what scale does these days beyond labeling tools that would make them this interesting to Meta? Data labeling tools seem more of a traditional software application and not much to do with AI models themselves that would be somewhat easily replicated, but guessing my impression is out of date. Also now apparently their CEO is leaving [1], so the idea that they were super impressed with him doesn't seem to…

It looks like security/surveillance play more than anything. Scale has strong relationships with the US MIC, the current administration (predating Zuck's rebranding), and gulf states.

Their Wikipedia history section lists accomplishments that align closely with DoD's vision for GenAI. The current admin, and the western political elite generally, are anxious about GenAI developments and social unrest, the pairing of Meta and Scale addresses their anxieties directly.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#308

Post by Jonovono »

cornfieldlabs wrote: post #17

Below article has interesting info but it's paywalled. Does anyone have a way to read this? https://www.theinformation.com/articles/fame-feud-and-fortun... Edit (as per wikipedia): "Lucy Guo was fired two years later in 2018." She was a co-founder.

And now she runs Onlyfans for minors....

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#309

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

ZiiS wrote: post #269
mooreds wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The host on this podcast[0] had a good point about the "investment". It was really a merger, but framed as an investment to sidestep regulators. Key attributes: * CEO works for meta * almost but not quite a majority stake taken 0: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/world-bank-cuts-u-s-gr...

The stake of FB and people now employed at FB at the executive level is clearly over 50% it seems very odd they are convincing anyone this is a minority?

> people now employed at FB at the executive level

I think it's reasonable that this is not counted, unless there's some possible condition on the stock ownership that I'm not aware of. If they ultimately disagree with the decisions from Facebook then they can, in theory, get help from the other stakeholders to override them.

That said, I would not be the least bit surprised if this turned out to be some scheme in which they use a series of technicalities that make the deal look like a merger but "be" an investment.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#310

Post by molsongolden »

islewis wrote: post #293

This appears to be a psuedo-acquisition, but with a strange format to appease regulators. Will this still be an exit event for employees or do they get screwed here?

Sounds like they're getting paid based on his note to employees:

> "The proceeds from Meta's investment will be distributed to those of you who are shareholders and vested equity holders [...] The exceptional team here has been the key to our success, so I'm thrilled to be able to return the favor with this meaningful liquidity distribution."

https://x.com/alexandr_wang/status/1933328165306577316

Post reply on HN