Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears

Post by nutjob2 » Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 2:59 PM UTC

miki123211 wrote: post #276

alsetmusic wrote: post #191

It almost seems as though the record-setting bonuses they were dolling out to hire the top minds in AI might have been a little shortsighted. A couple of years ago, I asked a financial investment person about AI as a trick question. She did well by recommending investing in companies that invest in AI (like MS) but who had other profitable businesses (like Azure). I was waiting for her to put her foot in her mouth an…

I have an overwhelming feeling that what we're trying to do here is "Netflix over DialUp." We're clearly seeing what AI will eventually be able to do, just like many VOD, smartphone and grocery delivery companies of the 90s did with the internet. The groundwork has been laid, and it's not too hard to see the shape of things to come. This tech, however, is still far too immature for a lot of use cases. There's enough…

Post by benterix » Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 3:00 PM UTC

miki123211 wrote: post #281

jocaal wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Past a certain point, skill doesn't contribute to the magnitude of success and it becomes all luck. There are plenty of smart people on earth, but there can only be 1 founder of facebook.

I view success as the product of three factors, luck, skill and hard work. If any of these is 0, you fail, regardless of how high the other two are. Extraordinary success needs all three to be extremely high.

Post by coffeebeqn » Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 3:01 PM UTC

lelanthran wrote: post #52

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1000 people can't get a woman to have a child faster than 1 person. So it depends on the type of problem you're trying to solve. If you're trying to build a bunch of Wendy's locations, it's clearly better to have more construction workers. It's less clear that if you're trying to build SGI that you're better off with 1000 people than 10. It might be! But it might not be, too. Who knows for certain til post-ex?

> 1000 people can't get a woman to have a child faster than 1 person. I always get slightly miffed about business comparisons to gestation: getting 9 women pregnant won't get you a child in 1 month. Sure, if you want one child. But that's not what business is often doing, now is it? The target is never "one child". The target is "10 children", or "100 children" or "1000 children". You are definitely going to overrun…

Post by eep_social » Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 3:02 PM UTC

zeristor wrote: post #286

Didn't Meta invest big into the Metaverse, then back track on that, was it $20 billion. I'd like for these investments to pay off, they're bold but it highlights how deep the pockets are to be able to invest so much.

Post by Q6T46nT668w6i3m » Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 3:02 PM UTC

miki123211 wrote: post #276

alsetmusic wrote: post #191

It almost seems as though the record-setting bonuses they were dolling out to hire the top minds in AI might have been a little shortsighted. A couple of years ago, I asked a financial investment person about AI as a trick question. She did well by recommending investing in companies that invest in AI (like MS) but who had other profitable businesses (like Azure). I was waiting for her to put her foot in her mouth an…

I have an overwhelming feeling that what we're trying to do here is "Netflix over DialUp." We're clearly seeing what AI will eventually be able to do, just like many VOD, smartphone and grocery delivery companies of the 90s did with the internet. The groundwork has been laid, and it's not too hard to see the shape of things to come. This tech, however, is still far too immature for a lot of use cases. There's enough…