181–190 of 507 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think people understand that once you're a billionaire with full ownership of your business and no risk of being ousted, making or losing billions is irrelevant.
Billionaires don't stop caring about looking like dumbasses just because they're extremely wealthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of all the tech companies, Meta is the most ruthless and shameless. You'd have to be a total fool to trust Zuck, especially Zuck who put billions into AR for not much return and now billions into AI to create lackluster lagging models.
> Of all the tech companies, Meta is the most ruthless and shameless. Have you seen Oracle?
Spending $15B to hire a 28 year old to build you some AI is certainly a move. You can call Zuck many things, but "afraid to take risks" isn't one of them.
From my perspective, Meta is doing pretty reasonable with their AI compared to eg Apple. What is their end goal with AI? I understand Google, Anthropic and OpenAI try to cater to a certain audience with their AI products. I understand the way Apple wants (but is failing) to integrate AI into their products. What’s Meta’s strategy here? What’s their vision?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The risk here is that you've now put a person with no track record of success outside of being good at sales in charge of your AI efforts. You're betting that he's going to be the one to attract talent. The right leadership might be able to get talent to work for a discount. The wrong one would lead to talent not coming at all.
What the commenter is saying is that this is no risk at all because $14B is negligible money for Meta at a year-long scale. It can always be written off as an investment that didn't work. In a company with $1.73T market cap, this is sometimes the loss you get in a single day of trading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The risk here is that you've now put a person with no track record of success outside of being good at sales in charge of your AI efforts. You're betting that he's going to be the one to attract talent. The right leadership might be able to get talent to work for a discount. The wrong one would lead to talent not coming at all.
If Meta is known for anything besides user privacy violations it's for taking risks that often pay off. They were laughed at for overpaying for Instagram and Whatsapp, yet both were instrumental to their current success. Their continued bet on VR is still highly criticized, yet they were the first Big Tech company in the space, they're the current market leaders, and I'm sure it will have huge ROI in the near future.…
Acquisitions do happen but it's telling when the people whose company you bought publically disparage you (in other words it wasn't a peaceful takeover)
Reminds me of "Don't dig for the gold, sell the shovels". Could also be read: > Meta spends 10% of last year's revenue to acquire 49% of a top AI data company and poach their leadership, to ensure they are a key player in what could be a ~5-trillion dollar industry by 2033. Meta has a history of this. Acquiring Oculus (and leaning in on VR), Ray-Ban partnership (and leaning in on AR)... etc. These all just seem like…
What top AI company? Certainly not Scale, right? You realise that frontier labs don't really use Scale anymore exactly because they can't be trusted not to sell their secret-sauce human data collection protocols. No-one in the industry takes this guy seriously.
Spending $15B to hire a 28 year old to build you some AI is certainly a move. You can call Zuck many things, but "afraid to take risks" isn't one of them.
He was spending $5b a year on whatever the metaverse was supposed to be and even renamed the company. Does anyone here use it? I think he weathers what I consider failure well. Or, conversely he can take big risks without too much blowback.
Spending $15B to hire a 28 year old to build you some AI is certainly a move. You can call Zuck many things, but "afraid to take risks" isn't one of them.
He was spending $5b a year on whatever the metaverse was supposed to be and even renamed the company. Does anyone here use it? I think he weathers what I consider failure well. Or, conversely he can take big risks without too much blowback.