691–700 of 722 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it bother you so much to see people out there who can go on without their lives being shaped by the Corporations?
It bothers me when people have terrible inefficient workflows for no good reason
I think Meta's strategy is to capture the 'normie-tier' of AI users. I know most of us here on HN track model releases quite frequently and discuss every parameter weight out of them, but most of the world is just... oblivious? I was discussing latest in tech with an accounting friend out of curiosity, and I kept talking about tiers of GPT-5.6 (Sol vs Terra vs Luna) and asked which one she used on the desktop 'Work'…
Former meta prick, sorry employee: > Meta's strategy Meta has no strategy. The people that made llama work left two years ago. MSI are a bunch of charlatans who are trying to change the culutre and tooling of meta from the outside (I can see their point, trying to work outside of the defaults is incredibly hard.) its basically a bun fight, with all of your productive workers being poached by frontier labs, and everyo…
It would not really be useful to have that conversation with employees because it's incredibly distracting (now product strategy is up for debate with way too many cooks in the kitchen), and very few employees have the exposure or skills to meaningfully contribute even if they think they do. I saw it firsthand at Google TGIFs.
Meta's strategy seems to be "personal agents" quite consistently. Remember they tried to buy Manus? And note that Muse Spark and the meta AI platform products clearly seem to prioritize web search, computer/browser use, and vision/language tasks over coding, which is something that had to bake for a long time. Also, this product launch itself is pretty interesting:
1. It's clearly a fast follow to the current FOTM hype startup Instinct with a much more comprehensive implementation and integration with their other agent products.
2. It's kind of like openclaw, which got a lot of non-developers very excited but was basically consistently unusable. Except this agent's compute runs remotely and presumably has slightly more sane development practices. IMO it's the first main openclaw-like product that has made it to the "just works" level of usability.
3. The focus on ecommerce is actually really really important, because Meta is trying to capture the intent/demand-driven purchasing flow that Google currently owns through search. Controlling the top of funnel is what enables google to make hundreds of billions of dollars per year on search ads. Meta is an advertising company and Google's search ads business is the most lucrative and centralized/well-defended advertising market in human history.
So it is actually a really big deal that Meta is trying to go after it (at least, the CUJ, it's possible that they'd monetize the agent-driven UX differently than search ads) because it's probably their best shot at disrupting that market and one of the few growth opportunities that would actually make a dent on their balance sheet. Obviously Meta is not going to lay out all that strategy stuff explicitly because for all intents and purposes it's a distraction and shifts the conversation in an unproductive direction (the strat behind the product, rather than the product itself). But it's pretty clear if you look for it.
Edit: Actually I thought about the advertising business more and I think in the short term this is partially about attribution/conversion. In 2022 the Apple tracking changes cost Meta $10B in lost conversion metrics; an agent-driven and proxied purchasing flow has built-in attribution and funnel measurement which is very valuable in its own right!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Grokbot wa first and enterprise and consumer focused
Grok is made by Elon Musk and hence fit for neither
Facebook is the first to market with a polished openclaw? Good for them. I'm sure many others will criticize other aspects of Meta, and rightly so. But imagine using a Claw agent with zero tech support available
They're not the first. Each lab has its own: grok bot, codex desktop, perplexity computer, Claude whatever
I think Meta's strategy is to capture the 'normie-tier' of AI users. I know most of us here on HN track model releases quite frequently and discuss every parameter weight out of them, but most of the world is just... oblivious? I was discussing latest in tech with an accounting friend out of curiosity, and I kept talking about tiers of GPT-5.6 (Sol vs Terra vs Luna) and asked which one she used on the desktop 'Work'…
I cant help feeling you'd have to be a special kind of stupid at this point to start feeding even more of your life into Meta. This is clearly aimed at the over 50's - their primary market on facebook.
I distrust Meta but if I'm being honest, if their tools were awesome and cheap enough I might start using Muse. A lot of people are in my camp: aware of privacy issues, too lazy to be strict about it.
Then again, maybe I won't come crawling back. Privacy issues barely affected most people in democratic America. If it ever goes full authoritarian (and we're heading in the wrong direction), then they'll matter a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment is one of the most dystopian things I've read on this site.
I think the phrasing is a little extreme. Rather than “tell them what to eat” I’d say something like “everyone wishes they had a personal assistant”. I could do a lot better at meal planning than I do. I rotate between relatively few dishes. An AI that finds recipes and automatically adds the ingredients to my shopping could be interesting. Technically it’s “telling me what to eat” but it’s not like I’m taking orders…
That's also a useful smoke screen for the accumulation of dossiers on every user's every behavior, for consumption by those who sell not products but influence and push political behavior.
Get off every one of their products and delete them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Billions of people use Facebook regularly. It's a tiny minority of us who would not use a useful product because of privacy concerns. I think you are wrong. It's not they who are a "special kind of stupid." It is us who are a "special kind of paranoid." Justifiably so, I would contend.
No, they're not wrong. There are just a very large number of people who are a special kind of stupid.