"Now let's make the others doubt that this is a meaningful investment"
After phase 1, "the shopping spree".
Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
481–490 of 936 posts
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#482After reading Careless People and watching Meta’s metaverse and AI moves, Mark comes across as a child chasing the shiny new thing.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#483It 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…
I'm not convinced that the immaturity of the tech is what's holding back the profits. The impact and adoption of the tech are through the roof. It has shaken the job market across sectors like I've never seen before. My thinking is that if the bubble bursts, it won't be because the technology failed to deliver functionally; it will be because the technology simply does not become as profitable to operate as everyone is betting right now.
What will it mean if the cutting edge models are open source, and being OpenAI effectively boils down to running those models in your data center? Your business model is suddenly not that different from any cloud service provider; you might as well be Digital Ocean.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s no evidence that it’ll scale like that. Progress in AI has always been a step function.
There's also no evidence that it won't, so your opinion carries exactly the same weight as theirs. > Progress in AI has always been a step function. There's decisively no evidence of that , since whatever measure you use to rate "progress in AI" is bound to be entirely subjective, especially with such a broad statement.
What do you call GPT 3.5?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#485Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
There’s no evidence that it’ll scale like that. Progress in AI has always been a step function.
The innovation here is that the step function didn't traditionally go down
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#486Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scaling AI will require an exponential increase in compute and processing power, A small quibble... I'd say that's true only if you accept as an axiom that current approaches to AI are "the" approach and reject the possibility of radical algorithmic advances that completely change the game. For my part, I have a strongly held belief that there is such an algorithmic advancement "out there" waiting to be discovered, t…
If we suppose that ANNs are more or less accurate models of real neural networks, the reason why they're so inefficient is not algorithmic, but purely architectural. They're just software. We have these huge tables of numbers and we're trying to squeeze them as hard as possible through a relatively small number of multipliers and adders. Meanwhile, a brain can perform a trillion fundamental simultaneously because eve…
> If we suppose that ANNs are more or less accurate models of real neural networks [..]
IANNs were inspired by biological neural structures and that's it. They are not representative models at all, even of the "less" variety. Dedicated hardware will certainly help, but no insights into how much it can help will come from this sort of comparison.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#487Scaling AI will require an exponential increase in compute and processing power, and even the current LLM models take up a lot of resources. We are already at the limit of how small we can scale chips and Moore’s law is already dead. So newer chips will not be exponentially better but will be more of incremental improvements, so unless the price of electricity comes down exponentially we might never see AGI at a pric…
it only requires exponentially MORE money for linear returns!
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#488Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s no evidence that it’ll scale like that. Progress in AI has always been a step function.
There's also no evidence that it won't, so your opinion carries exactly the same weight as theirs. > Progress in AI has always been a step function. There's decisively no evidence of that , since whatever measure you use to rate "progress in AI" is bound to be entirely subjective, especially with such a broad statement.
> There's also no evidence that it won't
There are signs, though. Every "AI" cycle, ever, has revolved around some algorithmic discovery, followed by a winter in search for the next one. This one is no different and propped up by LLMs, whose limitations we know quite well by now: "intelligence" is elusive, throwing more compute at them produces vastly diminishing returns, throwing more training data at them is no longer feasible (we came short of it even before the well got poisoned). Now the competitors are stuck at the same level, within percent points of one another, with the difference explained by fine-tuning techniques and not by technical prowess. Unless a cool new technique come yesterday to dislodge LLMs, we are in for a new winter.
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#489Is this the stage of the bubble where they burst the bubble by worrying that there’s a bubble?
Re: Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears
#490Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wage suppression? Its the opposite were talking about here. Pay large amounts of money to make sure people don't work on challenging problems. But sure you cant try and argue that's wage suppression.
The comment I was responding to was implying that it would be better for the collective if Meta was not paying these exorbitant salaries. You said “it [paying high salaries] is a great way to kneecap collective growth and development.” In other words, you’re suggesting that _not_ paying high salaries would be good for collective growth and development. And if Meta is currently willing to pay these salaries, but didn’…
Oh ya? If I am willing to pay my cleaner $350, but she only charges and accepted an offer of $200, I am engaging in the definition of wage suppression?