121–130 of 506 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new head is Chinese. There was a screenshot on Blind of his org at Apple and it was well over a hundred nearly exclusively Chinese reports
I heard the same about Satya. Not only does he exclusively hire Indians, but specific Indians too
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My leadership is currently promoting "better to ask forgiveness", or put another way: "a bias towards action" lol, that works well until a big issue occurs in production
Many companies will roll out to slices of production and monitor error rates. It is part of SRE and I would eat my hat if that wasn't the case here.
The real unmitigated danger of unchecked push to production is the velocity with which this generates technical debt. Shipping something implicitly promises the user that that feature will live on for some time, and that removal will be gradual and may require substitute or compensation. So, if you keep shipping half-baked product over and over, you'll be drowning in features that you wish you never shipped, and your support team will be overloaded, and, eventually, the product will become such a mess that developing it further will become too expensive or just too difficult, and then you'll have to spend a lot of money and time doing it all over... and it's also possible you won't have that much money and time.
I think this is because older AI doesn't get done what LLM AI does. Older AI = normal trained models, neural networks (without transformers), support vector machines, etc. For that reason, they are letting them go. They don't see revenue coming from that. They don't see new product lines (like AI Generative image/video). AI may have this every 5 years. A break through moves the technology into an entirely new area. T…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new head is Chinese. There was a screenshot on Blind of his org at Apple and it was well over a hundred nearly exclusively Chinese reports
I heard the same about Satya. Not only does he exclusively hire Indians, but specific Indians too
- 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 statements. I see what google and openai are after. Is there any case for anyone to make inside or outside Meta that AI is needed to build the future of human connection? What problem is Meta trying to solve with their billions of investment in "super" intelligence? I genuinely have no idea, and they probably don't either. Which is why they would be laying of 600 people a week after paying a billion dollars to some guy for working on the same stuff.
EDIT: everyone commenting that mission statements are PR fluff. Fine. What is a productive way they can use LLMs in any of their flagship products today?
I think this is because older AI doesn't get done what LLM AI does. Older AI = normal trained models, neural networks (without transformers), support vector machines, etc. For that reason, they are letting them go. They don't see revenue coming from that. They don't see new product lines (like AI Generative image/video). AI may have this every 5 years. A break through moves the technology into an entirely new area. T…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My leadership is currently promoting "better to ask forgiveness", or put another way: "a bias towards action". ... I don't spend as much time looking to "align with stakeholders"... Isn't that "move fast and break things" by another name?
it's more "move fast on a good foundation, rarely breaking things, and having a good team that can fix problems when they inevitably arise".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just assume they over hired. Too much hype for AI. Everyone wants to build the framework people use for AI nobody wants to build the actual tools that make AI useful.
They’ve done this before with their metaverse stuff. You hire a bunch, don’t see progress, let go of people in projects you want to shut down and then hire people in projects you want to try out. Why not just move people around you may ask? Possibly: different skill requirements More likely: people in charge change, and they usually want “their people” around Most definitely: the people being let go were hired when s…
Also, planning reorgs is a ton of work when you never bothered to learn what anyone does and have no real vision for what they should be doing.
If your paycheck goes up no matter what, why not just fire a bunch of them, shamelessly rehire the ones who turned out to be essential (luckily the job market isn't great), declare victory regardless of outcome, and you get to skip all that hard work?
Nevermind long term impacts, you'll probably be gone and a VP at goog or oracle by then!
Meta is fumbling hard. Winning the AI race is about marketing at this point - the difference between the models is negligible. Chat GPT is the one on everyone's lips outside of technology, and in the media. They have a platform by which to push some kind of assistant but where is it? I log into facebook and it's buried in the sidebar as Meta AI. Why aren't they shoving it down my throat? They have a huge platform of…
But application work is toiling and knowing the question set even with AI help, that's doesn't bode well for teams whose goal is owning and profiting from super AI that can do everything.
But maybe something will change? Maybe adversarial agents will see improvements like the alpha go moment?