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

Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 506 posts

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#381

Post by dragonwriter »

B-Con wrote: post #379
roadside_picnic wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While ex-FAIR people should have little problem finding a job, the market for paying research folks that level of TC and working on ambitious research projects, unless you're in a very-LLM specific space, is absolutely shrinking. It certainly feels like the end of an era to see Meta increasingly diminishing the role of FAIR. Strategically it might not have been ideal for LeCun to be so openly and aggressively critica…

FAIR? FAANG typo, or is there a new acronym?

> FAIR?

> FAANG typo, or is there a new acronym?

FAIR is the Meta AI unit (Fundamental AI Research) at issue, as spelled out in the second sentence of the article.

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#382

Post by fooker »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #369
kridsdale1 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I worked there (7 years), the gatekeeper effect was real. It didn’t stop broken or harmful, but it did stop revenue neutral or revenue negative. Even if we had proven the product was positive to user wellbeing or brand-favorability. Yes I’m still bitter.

Why would a business release a revenue negative product? Stopping engineers from making products that dont contribute to the bottom line is exactly what these gatekeepers should be doing

Because you don't have perfect foresight.

Something that loses money now can be the next big thing. ChatGPT is the biggest recent example of this.

I had seen chatbot demos at Google as early as 2019.

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#384

Post by conradev »

noosphr wrote: post #275
dekhn wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm seeing a lot of frustration at the leadership level about product velocity- and much of the frustration is pointed at internal gatekeepers who mainly seem to say no to product releases. My leadership is currently promoting "better to ask forgiveness", or put another way: "a bias towards action". There are definitely limits on this, but it's been helpful when dealing with various internal negotiations. I don't spe…

Big tech is suffering from the incumbents disease. What worked well for extracting profits from stable cash cows doesn't work in fields that are moving rapidly. Google et al. were at one point pinnacle technologies too, but this was 20 years ago. Everyone who knew how to work in that environment has moved on or moved up. Were I the CEO of a company like that I'd reduce headcount in the legacy orgs, transition them to…

For “as insulated as possible”, I’d personally start a whole new corporate entity, like Verizon did with Visible.

It wholly owns Visible, and Visible is undercutting Verizon by being more efficient (similar to how Google Fi does it). I love the model – build a business to destroy your current one and keep all of the profits.

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#385

Post by impossiblefork »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #360
impossiblefork wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it does. The models have increased greatly in capabilities, but the competitors have simply kept up, and it's not apparently that they won't continue to do that. Furthermore, the breakthroughs-- i.e. fundamentally better models, can happen anywhere where people can and do try out new architectures, and that can happen in surprisingly small places. It's mostly about culture and being willing to experimen…

Which is why getting rid of friction is a good idea. This is R&D. You want a skunkworks culture where you have the best people in the world trying as many new things as possible, and failure is fine as long as it's interesting failure. Not a culture where every development requires a permission slip from ten other teams, and/or everyone is worried if they'll still have a job a month from now.

Yes, definitely.

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#386

Post by renewiltord »

LunaSea wrote: post #282
renewiltord wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> No one can guess precisely how many people need to be hired Overshooting by 600 people sounds a lot like gross failure. Is someone going to take responsibilities for it? Probably not. That person's job is safe.

I suspect Mark Zuckerberg isn't going to fire himself for getting headcount wrong by 1%.

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#387

Post by freedomben »

drivebyhooting wrote: post #179
freedomben wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree, hence why I think it's shitty. I would like to see accountability for these people. They should be on the layoff chopping block IMHO.

But that said, you still have to deal with the situation and move forward. Sunk cost fallacy and all that

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#388

Post by duxup »

ceejayoz wrote: post #3

Because 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 might have seen it on HN, but I recall a study that was studying what made teams very effective. What they found was there were a rare few people who just by their involvement could make a team more effective. So rare that you may as well assume you won't ever see one.

But rather than finding magic to make teams better, they did find that there were types of people who make teams worse regardless of anyone else on the team, and they're not all that uncommon.

I think of those folks when I read that quote. That person who clearly doesn't understand but is in a position that their ignorant opinion is a go or no go type gate.

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#389

Post by ryandrake »

vitaflo wrote: post #234
themagician wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is happening everywhere. In every industry. Our economy is being propped up by this. From manufacturing to software engineering, this is how the US economy is continuing to "flourish" from a macroeconomic perspective. Margin is being preserved by reducing liabilities and relying on a combination of increased workload and automation that is "good enough" to get to the next step—but assumes there is a next step an…

We are all screwed even if it does pan out cuz they can ship every job overseas to the lowest bidder. Unless by “we” you mean the C-suite.

They’re not going to stop until the definition of a company is: A C-suite and robotics+AI to do the actual work. No labor costs. That’s the end goal of all these guys. We shouldn’t forget it.

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#390

Post by ryandrake »

KaiserPro wrote: post #141
ceejayoz wrote: post #3

Because 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.

They properly fucked FAIR. it was a lead, if not the leading AI lab. then they gave it to Chris Cox, the Midas of shit. It languished in "product" trying to do applied research. The rot had set in by mid 2024 if not earlier. Then someone convinced Zuck that he needed what ever that new kid is, and the rest is history. Meta has too many staff, exceptionally poor leadership, and a performance system that rewards bullsh…

> Meta has too many staff, exceptionally poor leadership, and a performance system that rewards bullshitters.

To be fair, almost every company has a performance system that rewards bullshitters. You’re rewarded on your ability to schmooze and talk confidently and write numerous great-sounding docs about all the great things you claim to be doing. This is not unique to one company.

Post reply on HN