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

Muse Spark 1.1

ai.meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 228 posts

Re: Muse Spark 1.1

#51

Post by ianm218 »

Lomlioto wrote: post #38
cpt100 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think it is definitely great. Having said that, I am still debating in my mind whether the volume of software engineers needed in the AI era is going to increase or decrease because of all of these advancements. On the one hand, because it is easy to build products, more and more people will build. And more and more products and features will be built. However, a lot of people who are non-technical will also…

At least in China a lot of software developers are now struggling. I think for a lot of type of software we have now reached peak employment. Someone payed a few k just for a normal website.

> At least in China a lot of software developers are now struggling.

Do you think that Chinese software industry is that relevant to the kind of software market talked about on HN? I.e. lots of enterprise b2b and infra companies.

Chinese companies have always had a very low willingness to pay for software which kinda breaks the flywheel of B2B SaaS companies and companies to service those companies all the way down.

Re: Muse Spark 1.1

#53

Post by paxys »

anthonypasq wrote: post #46

Everyone has been loving to shit on the Alexander Wang acquisition but this seems legitimately impressive to me? Meta's AI org when from a total mismanaged dumpster fire for multiple years to delivering a competitive model in less than a year on essentially their first try?

How is it their first try? They were leading the race with Llama 3.x a few years ago.

Re: Muse Spark 1.1

#54

Post by wolttam »

4d4m wrote: post #45
wolttam wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To expand on Chinese models: - DeepSeek - GLM (Z.ai) - Minimax - Kimi (Moonshot) - Hy3 (Tencent) - Qwen (Alibaba) (Each one of these with weights available to download and run locally)

GLM 5.2 is great, but is so rate limited now I no longer recommend it

I'm looking ahead to the next wave of open-weight models that are as efficient as DSv4 (which is really efficient), and have been heavily distilled on GLM 5.2 (which is trivial, given it is open weight)

Re: Muse Spark 1.1

#55

Post by zmmmmm »

qpricjalcbeu wrote: post #12
greenavocado wrote: post #6

Meta is back in the game, albeit not at the top. Impressive stuff, nonetheless.

Weren't they caught multiple times gaming the benchmark even more so then the rest?

Yes and Zuck effectively disbanded the entire team that did that. Not saying we shouldn't cast a critical eye on it, but it probably does warrant a second chance.

Re: Muse Spark 1.1

#56

Post by throwaway27448 »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #29
cpt100 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think it is definitely great. Having said that, I am still debating in my mind whether the volume of software engineers needed in the AI era is going to increase or decrease because of all of these advancements. On the one hand, because it is easy to build products, more and more people will build. And more and more products and features will be built. However, a lot of people who are non-technical will also…

> On the one hand, because it is easy to build products, more and more people will build. And those people won't need to be software engineers. > but they get stuck, and then they will need engineers You've implicitly assumed here that the AI systems will always be worse than the average engineer. That is IMO myopic. I'm not sure that it's even true now let alone in the nebulous future.

> And those people won't need to be software engineers....You've implicitly assumed here that the AI systems will always be worse than the average engineer.

Most of what we do as engineers is precisely describe or analyze the behavior we want or the behavior we don't want. All other engineering skills that are useful are ultimately downstream from understanding the behavior of software enough to know which parts to keep, improve, or jettison. Chatbots can take care, somewhat, of analysis or expansion of instructions.... but they can't read minds. I don't see that changing any time soon.

Re: Muse Spark 1.1

#57

Post by svantana »

lnenad wrote: post #18

Considering the DeepSWE result (imho if you're gonna give value to benchmarks this is one of the best) it's not good enough.

It's a high quality benchmark for sure, but it being public means it's at risk of leaking into the models (unintentionally or not), right? For that reason I prefer to look at the private ones, like: HLE, SimpleBench, Kagi, ARC-AGI.

Re: Muse Spark 1.1

#58

Post by zmmmmm »

Good to see Meta finally back to releasing something at least worth evaluating. And it sounds like they did at least a bit skate to where the puck is going by focusing on tool and computer use.

Re: Muse Spark 1.1

#60

Post by cyanydeez »

alansaber wrote: post #13
kilroy123 wrote: post #5

I personally do not like Meta, but I'll say this. The more competition, the better for regular consumers. (Enterprise too) - Chinese models - Grok - Meta - Google - OpenAI - Anthropic I think this is a win. I'm building like crazy to take advantage of all these subsidized tokens while I can.

Meta's local llama models used to be the face of open source AI. The scene has really changed.

they likely got the Peter Theil newsletter proclaiming open source models are the antichrist
Post reply on HN