[deleted]
Zuckerberg 'Admits' Meta's Layoffs Were Ineffective
161–170 of 246 posts
Re: Zuckerberg 'Admits' Meta's Layoffs Were Ineffective
#162I wonder when (if ever) the companies realize that demoralizing your workforce (and destroying that sector of the job market) doesn't have only advantages. I know plenty of people that reacted with the desired fear, putting in long hours to avoid layoffs, willingness to accept lower pay because the job market sucks, etc. - but I think there are also plenty of the the mythical 10x engineers that just checked out, stop…
"That’s my only real motivation: not to be hassled. That, and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired."
Re: Zuckerberg 'Admits' Meta's Layoffs Were Ineffective
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is AGI really inevitable ? Claiming something is inevitable is a great way to disarm critical thinking.
I always found arguments for or against such technological advancements meaningless, if we don't specify what timeframes we are talking about. Sometimes I have the impression that people who disagree are simply thinking in different timeframes. For me, only short- and sometimes mid-term timeframes are practical in such deabtes. Long-term is interesting, but more in the realm of science fiction. In the context of AGI,…
> In the context of AGI, is it inevitable eventually? Sure, I would agree, unless some catastrophic event puts back our technological advancement.
What if it’s not a catastrophic event, but technological progress just asymptotically approaches 0? What if there is a limit to layers upon layers of abstraction and at some point it just becomes too complicated to keep going?
What if we all somehow decide that we don’t want AGI? It seems impossible now but a lot of people really seem to hate AI. What if that sentiment grows globally the next 50-100 years?
That’s all ignoring the possibility that the materialists are wrong. Around 80% of the world believes in some kind of soul or spirit. If anything materialism is a bit of a fringe belief.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Admits' Meta's Layoffs Were Ineffective
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instagram ads are the most consistently interesting ads I see online, and by an enormous margin. Ads suck, and I resent that their inherent purpose is to manipulate me, but they accomplish their goal better than any other ads I've ever seen.
> Instagram ads are the most consistently interesting ads I see online The credit for that belongs to the advertisers not Instagram.
I don't mean it in a "super bowl commercial" way; the products in Instagram ads are the consistently interesting part. It seems like a safe assumption that the advertisers for plenty of uninteresting products are trying to buy ads on Instagram, and that the advertisers for plenty of interesting products are trying to buy ads elsewhere. That means that Instagram's targeting is the differentiating factor.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Admits' Meta's Layoffs Were Ineffective
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Instagram ads are the most consistently interesting ads I see online The credit for that belongs to the advertisers not Instagram.
I don't mean it in a "super bowl commercial" way; the products in Instagram ads are the consistently interesting part. It seems like a safe assumption that the advertisers for plenty of uninteresting products are trying to buy ads on Instagram, and that the advertisers for plenty of interesting products are trying to buy ads elsewhere. That means that Instagram's targeting is the differentiating factor.
I guess my argument is that it's not innovative or "hard" to sell ads to people who have given you massive amounts of personal and demographic information (voluntarily!)
Re: Zuckerberg 'Admits' Meta's Layoffs Were Ineffective
#166I wonder when (if ever) the companies realize that demoralizing your workforce (and destroying that sector of the job market) doesn't have only advantages. I know plenty of people that reacted with the desired fear, putting in long hours to avoid layoffs, willingness to accept lower pay because the job market sucks, etc. - but I think there are also plenty of the the mythical 10x engineers that just checked out, stop…
I don't think in large companies or names like Meta, the top brass actually care what the moral amongst workers are.
I was at Accenture when they let a lot of people go. I watched very talented people just leave. Nothing changed. Management couldn't care less. They could always hire anyone they want/need to.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Admits' Meta's Layoffs Were Ineffective
#167I wonder when (if ever) the companies realize that demoralizing your workforce (and destroying that sector of the job market) doesn't have only advantages. I know plenty of people that reacted with the desired fear, putting in long hours to avoid layoffs, willingness to accept lower pay because the job market sucks, etc. - but I think there are also plenty of the the mythical 10x engineers that just checked out, stop…
I don't think in large companies or names like Meta, the top brass actually care what the moral amongst workers are. I was at Accenture when they let a lot of people go. I watched very talented people just leave. Nothing changed. Management couldn't care less. They could always hire anyone they want/need to.
That's true to a point, but Amazon is finding out the hard way that eventually the well of people willing to put up with bullshit runs dry and it becomes much harder to get actually good talent or workers.
Meta needs to be careful IMO. The subset of capable people willing to work for a company as demonstrably evil as them is not infinite.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Admits' Meta's Layoffs Were Ineffective
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think in large companies or names like Meta, the top brass actually care what the moral amongst workers are. I was at Accenture when they let a lot of people go. I watched very talented people just leave. Nothing changed. Management couldn't care less. They could always hire anyone they want/need to.
That's true to a point, but Amazon is finding out the hard way that eventually the well of people willing to put up with bullshit runs dry and it becomes much harder to get actually good talent or workers. Meta needs to be careful IMO. The subset of capable people willing to work for a company as demonstrably evil as them is not infinite.
Oh I have not heard about the Amazon issue. Can you please point me to an article or post detailing? Now I'm very curious.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Admits' Meta's Layoffs Were Ineffective
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always found arguments for or against such technological advancements meaningless, if we don't specify what timeframes we are talking about. Sometimes I have the impression that people who disagree are simply thinking in different timeframes. For me, only short- and sometimes mid-term timeframes are practical in such deabtes. Long-term is interesting, but more in the realm of science fiction. In the context of AGI,…
> In the context of AGI, is it inevitable eventually? Sure, I would agree, unless some catastrophic event puts back our technological advancement. What if it’s not a catastrophic event, but technological progress just asymptotically approaches 0? What if there is a limit to layers upon layers of abstraction and at some point it just becomes too complicated to keep going? What if we all somehow decide that we don’t wa…
What is a globally accepted sentiment found in every nation, tribe, village, and domicile across the globe today?
Re: Zuckerberg 'Admits' Meta's Layoffs Were Ineffective
#170The title is a weird. Ineffective? At doing what? This is an interesting quote from Zuckerberg: > trajectory of the agentic development over at least the last four months hasn’t really accelerated in the way that we expected Combine that with the other theories about Meta management in the article, I think we have the answer to is Zuckerberg a "dimwitted or just evil". It's probably the former. He can't plan four mon…
>I think we have the answer to is Zuckerberg a "dimwitted or just evil". It's probably the former. Why is this an either/or? Those aren't mutually exclusive.
Personally I believe very few people to be actually evil, but it's a question of definition. To me, you need to be deliberate to be evil. E.g. Elon Musk isn't evil (I think), he's just insane. Peter Thiel might actually be evil, because his actions are deliberate and planned. Zuckerberg also doesn't strike me as evil, just incredibly socially inept (and maybe dimwitted).
But no, you're right, it doesn't have to be one or the other.