Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's little evidence that this is a common problem.
there is in meta. Userneed is very much second to company priority metrics.
I wouldn’t say this lends to a bias of over-engineering but more so psc optimizing
Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division
171–180 of 506 posts
Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division
#172> while the company continues to hire workers for its newly formed superintelligence team, TBD Lab. It's coming any day now! > "... each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Wang writes It's only a matter of time before the superintelligence decides to lay off the managers too. Soon Mr. Wang will be gone and we'll see press releases like: > ”By reducing the size of our team, fewer convers…
> It's coming any day now! I'm loving this juxtaposition of companies hyping up imminent epoch-defining AGI, while simultaneously dedicating resources to building TikTok But Worse or adding erotica support to ChatGPT. Interesting priorities.
When they came for AO3, I said nothing…
Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division
#173From a quick online search: - OpenAI's mission is to build safe AI, and ensure AI's benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible. - Google's mission is to organise the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. - Meta's mission is to build the future of human connection and the technology that makes it possible. Lets just take these three companies, and their self-defined mission…
Why are you asking questions about their PR department coordinated "Company missions"? Let me summarise their real missions: 1. Power and money 2. Power and money 3. Power and money How does AI help them make money and gain more power? I can give you a few ways...
By replacing the cost of human labor?
By improving the control of human decision making?
By consolidating control of economic activity?
Just top of the head answers.
Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division
#174From a quick online search: - OpenAI's mission is to build safe AI, and ensure AI's benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible. - Google's mission is to organise the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. - Meta's mission is to build the future of human connection and the technology that makes it possible. Lets just take these three companies, and their self-defined mission…
Maybe the future of human connection is chatting with a large language model, at least according to Meta. Haven't they added chatbots to messenger?
That’s not “the future of human connection”
The critical word in there is… Never mind. If you can’t already see it, nothing I can say will make you see it.
Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division
#175From a quick online search: - OpenAI's mission is to build safe AI, and ensure AI's benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible. - Google's mission is to organise the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. - Meta's mission is to build the future of human connection and the technology that makes it possible. Lets just take these three companies, and their self-defined mission…
>Is there any case for anyone to make inside or outside Meta that AI is needed to build the future of human connection?
No, Facebook's strategy has always been the inverse of this. When they support technologies like this they're 'commoditizing the complement', they're driving the commercial value of the thing they don't have to zero so the thing they actually do sell (a human network) differentiates them. Same reason they're quite big on open source, it eliminates their biggest competitors advantages.
Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division
#176Because the AI works so well, or because it doesn't? > ”By reducing the size of our team, fewer conversations will be required to make a decision, and each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Wang writes in a memo seen by Axios. That's kinda wild. I'm kinda shocked they put it in writing.
What are you shocked by? Genuine question. I imagine there’s some people who might like the idea that, with less people and fewer stakeholders around, the remaining team now has more power to influence the org compared to before. (I can see why someone might think that’s a charitable interpretation) I personally didn’t read it as “everyone will now work more hours per day”. I read it as “each individual will now have…
That's just corporate speak. If they cut middle (mis)management that might be true. Did they?
Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division
#177Everyone here ragging on Wang but I can never figure out how some people grow the balls to work themselves into such high positions. Like, if I met with Zuck, I think he’d be unimpressed and bored within 2 minutes. Yet this guy (and others like him) can convince Zuck to give him a few billion dollars.
There is a language these people speak, and some physical primate posturing they do, which my brain just can’t emulate.
Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wild about this? They're saying that they're streamlining the org by reducing decision-makers so that everything isn't design-by-committee. Seems perfectly reasonable, and a common failure mode for large orgs. Anecdotally, this is a problem at Meta as described by my friends there.
Maybe they shouldn't have hired and put so many cooks in the kitchen. Treating workers like pawns is wild and you should not be normalizing the idea that it's OK for Big Tech to hire up thousands, find out they don't need them, and lay them off to be replaced by the next batch of thousands by the next leader trying to build an empire within the company. Treating this as SOP is a disservice to your industry and everyo…
No, I'm totally fine with it. No one can guess precisely how many people need to be hired and I'd rather they overshoot than undershoot because some law stops it. This means that now some people were employed who would not otherwise be employed. That's spending by Meta that goes to people.
Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division
#179Because the AI works so well, or because it doesn't? > ”By reducing the size of our team, fewer conversations will be required to make a decision, and each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Wang writes in a memo seen by Axios. That's kinda wild. I'm kinda shocked they put it in writing.
I can actually relate to that, especially in a big co where you hire fast. I think it's shitty to over-hire and lay off, but I've definitely worked in many teams where there were just too many people (many very smart) with their own sense of priorities and goals, and it makes it hard to anything done. This is especially true when you over-divide areas of responsiblity.
Those people have families and responsibilities. Leadership should take responsibility for their poor planning.
Alas, the burden falls on the little guys. Especially in this kind of labor market.
Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division
#180From a quick online search: - OpenAI's mission is to build safe AI, and ensure AI's benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible. - Google's mission is to organise the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. - Meta's mission is to build the future of human connection and the technology that makes it possible. Lets just take these three companies, and their self-defined mission…
Targeting ads better. Better sentiment analysis. Custom ads written for each user based on their preferences. Features for their AR glasses. Probably try to take a piece of the Google search pie. Use this AI search to serve ads.
Ads are their product mostly, though they are also trying to get into consumer hardware.