Mark Zuckerberg freezes AI hiring amid bubble fears

Post by joegibbs » Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 11:25 PM UTC

aaronblohowiak wrote: post #455

me551ah wrote: post #435

Scaling 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…

We are either limited by compute, available training data, or algorithms. You seem to believe we are limited by compute. I've seen other people argue that we are limited by training data. It is my totally inexpert belief that we are substantially limited by algorithms at this point.

Post by amalcon » Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 11:27 PM UTC

epolanski wrote: post #419

ninetyninenine wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Giving 1.5 million salary is nothing for these people. It shouldn’t be mind boggling. They see revolutionary technology that has potential to change the world and is changing the world already. Making a gamble like that is worth it because losing is trivial compared to the upside of success. You are where you are and not where they are because your mind is boggled by winning strategies that are designed to arrive at…

But how is it worth for meta, since they won't really monetize it. At least the others can kinda bundle it as a service. After spending tens of billions in AI how has it impacted a single dollar on meta's revenue?

Post by fragmede » Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 11:37 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #25

nabla9 wrote: post #10

Quality over quantity. Apparently its better to pay $100 million for 10 people than $1 million for 1000 people.

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?

Post by BobaFloutist » Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 11:43 PM UTC

jopsen wrote: post #525

dml2135 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a logical fallacy that just because some technology experienced some period of exponential growth, all technology will always experience constant exponential growth. There are plenty of counter-examples to the scaling of computers that occurred from the 1970s-2010s. We thought that humans would be traveling the stars, or at least the solar system, after the space race of the 1960s, but we ended up stuck orbiting…

True, but adoption of AI has certainly seen exponential growth. Improvement of models may not continue to be exponential. But models might be good enough, at this point it seems more like they need integration and context. I could be wrong :)

Post by mvdtnz » Thu, Aug 21, 2025, 11:50 PM UTC

tracker1 wrote: post #601

I'm somewhere in the middle on this, with regards to the ROI... this isn't the kind of thing where you see immediate reflection on quarterly returns... it's the kind of thing where if you don't hedge some bets, you're likely to completely die out from a generational shift. Facebook's product is eyeballs... they're being usurped on all sides between TikTok, X and BlueSky in terms of daily/regular users... They're comp…