Working in big tech it's pretty wild to see how integral AI has become to our work internally, vs the public perception of it. People are NOT prepared.
Not everyone has given in to the crutch.
Meta Superintelligence Labs' first paper is about RAG
101–110 of 283 posts
Re: Meta Superintelligence Labs' first paper is about RAG
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you elaborate or link something here? I think about this pretty frequently, so would love to read something!
Metric: time to run 100m Context: track athlete Does it cease to be a good metric? No. After this you can likely come up with many examples of target metrics which never turn bad.
> Metric: time to run 100m
> Context: track athlete
> Does it cease to be a good metric? No.
What do you mean? People start doping or showing up with creatively designed shoes and you need to layer on a complicated system to decide if that's cheating, but some of the methods are harder to detect and then some people cheat anyway, or you ban steroids or stimulants but allow them if they're by prescription to treat an unrelated medical condition and then people start getting prescriptions under false pretexts in order to get better times. Or worse, someone notices that the competition can't set a good time with a broken leg.
Re: Meta Superintelligence Labs' first paper is about RAG
#103Re: Meta Superintelligence Labs' first paper is about RAG
#104It's kinda funny, Meta has long had some of the best in the field, but left them untapped. I really think if they just took a step back and stop being so metric focused and let their people freely explore then they'd be winning the AI race. But with this new team, I feel like meta mostly hired the people who are really good at gaming the system. The people that care more about the money than the research. A bit of th…
> Labs used to hire researchers and give them a lot of free reign. I can't think of it ever really paying off. Bell Labs is the best example. Amazing research that was unrelated to the core business off the parent company. Microsoft Research is another great one. Lots of interesting research that .. got MS some nerd points? But has materialized into very very few actual products and revenue streams. Moving AI researc…
Indeed. And it feels like there is this untold in-between where if you belong to an unknown applied AI team, you don’t have to deal with academia’s yak shaving, you don’t have to deal with Meta’s politics and you end up single handedly inventing TRMs.
Re: Meta Superintelligence Labs' first paper is about RAG
#105It's kinda funny, Meta has long had some of the best in the field, but left them untapped. I really think if they just took a step back and stop being so metric focused and let their people freely explore then they'd be winning the AI race. But with this new team, I feel like meta mostly hired the people who are really good at gaming the system. The people that care more about the money than the research. A bit of th…
My theory is that as more people compete, the top candidates become those who are best at gaming the system rather than actually being the best. Someone has probably studied this. My only evidence is job applications for GAFAM and Tinder tho.
But there is no way to know who is truly the 'best'. The people who position and market themselves to be viewed as the best are the only ones who even have a chance to be viewed as such. So if you're a great researcher but don't project yourself that way, no one will ever know you're a great researcher (except for the other great researchers who aren't really invested in communicating how great you are). The system seems to incentivize people to not only optimize for their output but also their image. This isn't a bad thing per se, but is sort of antithetical to the whole shoulder of giants ethos of science.
Re: Meta Superintelligence Labs' first paper is about RAG
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but I'm the real world do you think businesses are going to deploy piles of code into production generated this way? No, non technical people will continue to whip up MS PowerApps. AI generated code has no value to many businesses.
The value of AI is not in generating code. That's just a "nice-to-have." The value of AI is in having a scalable, human-like decision maker that you can plug into anything, anywhere. This has unlocked countless use cases for my team, that we could scarcely imagine a few years ago.
"Human-like decision maker" except it's just as if not more unpredictable than a human, has no understanding of what it's actually outputting or the impact of it, and it isn't concerned with losing their job or facing legal repercussions for their actions.
Re: Meta Superintelligence Labs' first paper is about RAG
#107It's kinda funny, Meta has long had some of the best in the field, but left them untapped. I really think if they just took a step back and stop being so metric focused and let their people freely explore then they'd be winning the AI race. But with this new team, I feel like meta mostly hired the people who are really good at gaming the system. The people that care more about the money than the research. A bit of th…
> Labs used to hire researchers and give them a lot of free reign. I can't think of it ever really paying off. Bell Labs is the best example. Amazing research that was unrelated to the core business off the parent company. Microsoft Research is another great one. Lots of interesting research that .. got MS some nerd points? But has materialized into very very few actual products and revenue streams. Moving AI researc…
Perhaps these companies just end up with so much money that they can't possibly find ways to spend all of it rationally for purely product driven work and just end up funding projects with no clear business case.
Re: Meta Superintelligence Labs' first paper is about RAG
#108This has nothing to do with superintelligence, it's just the people that were working on the paper prior to the re-org happened to publish after the name change. Though it is notable that contrary to many (on HN and Twitter) that Meta would stop publishing papers and be like other AI labs (e.g. OpenAI). They're continued their rapid pace of releasing papers AND open source models.
Should be the top comment.
MSL is not only those few high profile hires.
Re: Meta Superintelligence Labs' first paper is about RAG
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you elaborate or link something here? I think about this pretty frequently, so would love to read something!
Metric: time to run 100m Context: track athlete Does it cease to be a good metric? No. After this you can likely come up with many examples of target metrics which never turn bad.
If it were a good metric there wouldn't be a few phone books worth of regulations on what you can do before and during running 100 meters. From banning rocket shoes, to steroids, to robot legs the 100 meter run is a perfect example of a terrible metric both intrinsically as a measure of running speed and extrinsically as a measure of fitness.
Re: Meta Superintelligence Labs' first paper is about RAG
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
The value of AI is not in generating code. That's just a "nice-to-have." The value of AI is in having a scalable, human-like decision maker that you can plug into anything, anywhere. This has unlocked countless use cases for my team, that we could scarcely imagine a few years ago.
"Human-like decision maker" except it's just as if not more unpredictable than a human, has no understanding of what it's actually outputting or the impact of it, and it isn't concerned with losing their job or facing legal repercussions for their actions.
There are plenty of ways to manage those drawbacks, and a mind-boggling number of use cases where it's "good enough" already.
But it's not my job to convince you, my lived experience working with the tech is enough to convince me, and that's all I care about, to be honest. Everyone else will get there sooner or later.