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

Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 507 posts

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#201

Post by sensanaty »

kubb wrote: post #108
deviation wrote: post #81

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…

Remember the Metaverse delusion? People forgot about that as if Zuck wasn't walking around telling us we'd hang out with friends in virtual spaces, and do activities with goggles on. I really have got to think about that every time people act like these overvalued companies with unlimited funds know what they're doing.

I mean have you seen the interview he did with Theo Von? The guy is a straight up Alien in the way he talks and acts, all those memes about him being a lizard aren't exactly far off.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#202

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

paxys wrote: post #171
bko wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cash is the least concern. I listened to a podcast about the history of Microsoft and there were times where Gates said "at least it was only money" or something to that effect. Microsoft floundered an entire decade on mobile and Windows Vista when they were going to lose out on Google that was literally paying OEMs to use their software and Apple, who had a vertical stack and made money off hardware. Huge setback in…

There's a pretty common saying in the tech industry - "if you can solve a problem by throwing money at it then it isn't really a problem".

I've been in the tech industry a quarter century, I've never heard this "pretty common saying" before, and most importantly I don't think it makes any sense. If anything, tech excels at disruption, where smaller competitors and new ideas are able to solve problems where "just throwing money at it" has failed.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#203

Post by SkyPuncher »

paxys wrote: post #171
bko wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cash is the least concern. I listened to a podcast about the history of Microsoft and there were times where Gates said "at least it was only money" or something to that effect. Microsoft floundered an entire decade on mobile and Windows Vista when they were going to lose out on Google that was literally paying OEMs to use their software and Apple, who had a vertical stack and made money off hardware. Huge setback in…

There's a pretty common saying in the tech industry - "if you can solve a problem by throwing money at it then it isn't really a problem".

I have literally never heard this.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#204

Post by layer8 »

lr4444lr wrote: post #197
akudha wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the big risk here? He has the cash to burn and he has full control of his position. Nothing will happen to him if he wastes a few Billions. He is not some poor single mom who has to decide between fixing her car and paying for kid’s Christmas presents

The risk is the lost time by betting on the wrong horse. I don't know much about Wang, but the current phase of the AI race will likely shake out winners and losers of the tech industry who persist for many years to come. Being first to achieve certain milestones matters a lot.

Not betting on any horse is unlikely to make you a winner either, however.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#205

Post by [deleted] »

laborcontract wrote: post #104
akudha wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the big risk here? He has the cash to burn and he has full control of his position. Nothing will happen to him if he wastes a few Billions. He is not some poor single mom who has to decide between fixing her car and paying for kid’s Christmas presents

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.

[deleted]

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#206

Post by knuppar »

krosaen wrote: post #92

Anyone know what scale does these days beyond labeling tools that would make them this interesting to Meta? Data labeling tools seem more of a traditional software application and not much to do with AI models themselves that would be somewhat easily replicated, but guessing my impression is out of date. Also now apparently their CEO is leaving [1], so the idea that they were super impressed with him doesn't seem to…

> Also now apparently their CEO is leaving

Leaving to join "Meta's super intelligence efforts", whatever that means.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#207

Post by UncleOxidant »

laborcontract wrote: post #104
akudha wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the big risk here? He has the cash to burn and he has full control of his position. Nothing will happen to him if he wastes a few Billions. He is not some poor single mom who has to decide between fixing her car and paying for kid’s Christmas presents

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.

Meta already had an AI division led by the venerable Yann LeCun - someone with actual AI bona fides. I'm not seeing any info about what this does to LeCun's position in Meta.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#208

Post by paxys »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #202
paxys wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a pretty common saying in the tech industry - "if you can solve a problem by throwing money at it then it isn't really a problem".

I've been in the tech industry a quarter century, I've never heard this "pretty common saying" before, and most importantly I don't think it makes any sense. If anything, tech excels at disruption, where smaller competitors and new ideas are able to solve problems where "just throwing money at it" has failed.

> I don't think it makes any sense

> tech excels at disruption, where smaller competitors and new ideas are able to solve problems where "just throwing money at it" has failed

I don't think you understand the saying then, because this is exactly its point.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#209

Post by RankingMember »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #160
RankingMember wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Billionaires don't stop caring about looking like dumbasses just because they're extremely wealthy.

If this is true, then evidence indicates that I have a different definition of what "looking like a dumbass" means than many of our billionaires.

In light of these (accurate) critiques, I think I should've gone with my original wording, which referred to them still caring about their legacy regardless of how many billions they had. That's more what I was going for, but I dumbed it down, apparently too much.

Re: Meta invests $14.3B in Scale AI to kick-start superintelligence lab

#210

Post by jordanb »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #173
imiric wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Sure, but this is a different value proposition. FB paid $1B for Instagram, which was trendy, growing fast, and already had 30 million users. FB paid $19B for Whatsapp, which was already established worldwide with ~400 million users. These acquisitions were very much in-line with FB's core product. The people saying it was risky were mostly just saying that it was a waste of money and that FB could have just beaten t…

> it was a waste of money and that FB could have just beaten their competition instead of buying them.

Correction, people were saying that FB couldn't beat their competition and had to buy them.

Post reply on HN