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

Meta's new A.I. superstars are chafing against the rest of the company

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 167 posts

Re: Meta's new A.I. superstars are chafing against the rest of the company

#151

Post by esafak »

captain_coffee wrote: post #146
retsibsi wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I missed the point; my point is that LLMs do something more complex and far more effective than memorise->regurgitate, and so the original analogy doesn't shed any light. This actor has read billions of plays and learned many of the underlying patterns , which allows him to come up with novel and (often) sensible responses when he is forced to improvise.

> LLMs do something more complex and far more effective than memorise-regurgitate They literally do not, what are you talking about?

What kind of training data do you suppose contains an answer to "how to build a submarine out of spaghetti on Mars" ? What do you think memorization means?

https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6942e03a42b481919092d4751e3d808e

Re: Meta's new A.I. superstars are chafing against the rest of the company

#152

Post by milowata »

sokoloff wrote: post #110
milowata wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wang is a networking machine and has connected with everyone in the industry. Likely was brought in as a recruiting leader. Mark being Mark, though, doesn’t understand the value of vision and figured getting big names in the same room was better than actually having a plan.

Your last sentence suggests that he willingly failed to take the choice to create a vision and a plan. If, for whatever reason, you don't have a vision and a plan, hiring big names to help kickstart that process seems like a way better next step than "do nothing".

You’re right – the way I phrased it assumes “having a plan” is a possibility for him. It isn’t. The best he was ever going to do was get talent in the room, make a Thinking Machines knockoff blog post with some hand wavey word salad, and stand around until they do something useful.

Re: Meta's new A.I. superstars are chafing against the rest of the company

#153

Post by setgree »

WhyOhWhyQ wrote: post #80
setgree wrote: post #49

I'm as ready to hate on Meta as anyone but this article is a bit of a nothingburger. So there are disagreements about resource allocation among staff. That's normal and healthy. The CEO's job is to resolve those disagreements and it sounds like Zuck is doing it. The suggestion to train Meta's products on Instagram and Facebook data was perfectly reasonable from the POV of the needs of Cox's teams. You'd want your ski…

Can somebody explain to me how giving a 28 year old kid 250 million (or was it 1 billion) to run your AI lab is a good idea? Or is it actually a dumb idea? I think it is a dumb idea, but maybe somebody can make it make sense.

well if the expected value of developing AGI is 100 quadrillion dollars -- 1000X bigger than the entire global economy -- and you think this person has a .01% chance of getting there in any given year, you should pay him 10 trillion dollars a year :)

Re: Meta's new A.I. superstars are chafing against the rest of the company

#154

Post by WhyOhWhyQ »

setgree wrote: post #153
WhyOhWhyQ wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can somebody explain to me how giving a 28 year old kid 250 million (or was it 1 billion) to run your AI lab is a good idea? Or is it actually a dumb idea? I think it is a dumb idea, but maybe somebody can make it make sense.

well if the expected value of developing AGI is 100 quadrillion dollars -- 1000X bigger than the entire global economy -- and you think this person has a .01% chance of getting there in any given year, you should pay him 10 trillion dollars a year :)

I think a surprisingly good AI will come into existence and one of the lessons will be that we greatly overvalue intelligence over basic distribution. Giving a single kid millions and billions is symbolic of the actual problem (the distribution one).

Also, there's basically 0% chance this kid is one of the top 1000 most knowledgeable people in the world on this technology.

Re: Meta's new A.I. superstars are chafing against the rest of the company

#155

Post by alex1138 »

mullingitover wrote: post #56
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That framing is silly. “NBC doesn’t have a television business, they have an ad business”. “Google doesn’t have a search business, they have an ad business.” “Amazon doesn’t have a retail business, they have an ad business.” It doesn’t provide any value to reframe it this way, unless you think it’s some big secret that ads are the main source of revenue for these businesses.

I'd contrast this with Flickr. Flickr was the original social network. They have a modest loss leader, a reasonable free tier, but nothing like the permanent money bonfire that the big tech firms operate. They were kinda the first real Web 2.0 social media site, with a social graph, privacy controls, a developer API, tagging, RSS feeds. I feel that they never really got to their full potential exactly because these b…

> VC-backed dumping operations

Which is very reassuring considering some of them are fairly obviously on the wrong side of history with very naive viewpoints https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7852246

Re: Meta's new A.I. superstars are chafing against the rest of the company

#156

Post by Eisenstein »

anon84873628 wrote: post #150
Eisenstein wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the definition of intelligence?

Ability to create an internal model of the world and run simulations/predictions on it in order to optimize the actions that lead to a goal. Bigger, more detailed models and more accurate prediction power are more intelligent.

How do you know if something is creating an internal model of the world?

Re: Meta's new A.I. superstars are chafing against the rest of the company

#157

Post by nl »

prng2021 wrote: post #149
nl wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most things humans do are reflexive, type one "thinking" that AIs do just as well as humans. I think our type two reasoning is roughly comparable to LLM reasoning when it is within the LLM reinforcement learning distribution. I think some humans are smarter than LLMs out-of-distribution, but only when we think carefully, and in many cases LLMs perform better than many humams even in this case.

You didn’t answer my question

That's because it's reductionist and I reject the supposition.

I think humans are smart. I also think AI is smart.

Re: Meta's new A.I. superstars are chafing against the rest of the company

#158

Post by subb »

Eisenstein wrote: post #142
subb wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect a lot of people but especially nerdy folks might mix up knowledge and intelligence, because they've been told "you know so much stuff, you are very smart!" And so when they interact with a bot that knows everything, they associate it with smart. Plus we anthropomorphise a lot. Is Wikipedia "smart"?

What is the definition of intelligence?

Definitely not _only_ knowledge.

Re: Meta's new A.I. superstars are chafing against the rest of the company

#159

Post by prng2021 »

nl wrote: post #157
prng2021 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn’t answer my question

That's because it's reductionist and I reject the supposition. I think humans are smart. I also think AI is smart.

Your original comment was:

“Humans aren't smart, they are really just good at appearing to be smart. Prove me wrong.”

Post reply on HN