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

221–230 of 507 posts

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

#221

Post by const_cast »

bathtub365 wrote: post #168
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.…

What is convincing you that VR will have huge ROI in the near future? We are over 10 years in to the modern VR era and despite even Meta’s strong device sales it’s still very niche. Apple is trying their hardest and even they had to correct their sales expectations.

I think everyone is greatly overestimating VR.

The thing is, I can imagine some futuristic version of AI that transforms humanity. But with VR, even in my wildest dreams with all the problems solved, it’s still just second best to smartphones and computers.

Imagine the perfect headset. Tiny, battery lasts forever, photo-realistic. I would still rather browse the Internet on my phone. I’d rather do my work on my laptop. I’d rather watch movies on my TV. What is the VR adding? Nothing but extra hoops to just through to get things done.

The only usecase that makes any sense is gaming. But only some games. It’s just too niche.

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

#223

Post by noosphr »

paxys wrote: post #178
hoofhearted wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, those were entirely different user experiences when the services you mentioned were gaining traction and finding product market fit. UberCab and Palo Alto Delivery were both services that had great success at user experiences for everyone involved including drivers, riders, small businesses, people ordering food. These experiences created brand champions who went out and raved about these technological innovation…

People on HN aren't the ones driving Ubers, so I'm not sure what experiences you are expecting to hear about. Go talk to actual drivers and you'll find that things aren't exactly rosy.

Driving for Uber in 2010 was amazing.

There were plenty of people on HN who signed up for the app to drive people back home before and after work.

Being able to see your car move in real time on the uber database with >2s lag between your car GPS and customers phone was magical in a way that's hard to describe today.

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

#224

Post by epsilonthree »

I work at Meta. Scale has given us atrocious data so many times, and gotten caught sending us ChatGPT generated data multiple times. Even the WSJ knew: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/alexandr-wang-scale-ai-d7c6efd7 https://archive.is/5mbdH

We intentionally didn’t use them at all for Llama 2 and mostly avoided using them for Llama 3, but execs kept pushing Scale on us. Total mystery why until now, guess this explains it.

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

#226

Post by moralestapia »

ml-anon wrote: post #85

The only way to understand this is by knowing: Meta already has two (!!) AI labs who are already at existential odds with one-another and both are in the process of failing spectacularly. One (FAIR) is lead by Rob Fergus (who? exactly!) because the previous lead quit. Relatively little gossip on that one other than top AI labs have their pick of outgoing talent. The other (GenAI) is lead by Ahmad Al-Dahle (who? exact…

You forgot LeCunn, but yeah that guy's on its own death spiral.

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

#227

Post by [deleted] »

rybosome wrote: post #124
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…

Scale has also built massive amounts of proprietary datasets that they license to the big players in training. Meta, Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. all use Scale data in training. So, the play I’m guessing is to shut that tap off for everyone else now, and double down on using Scale to generate more proprietary datasets.

[deleted]

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

#228

Post by [deleted] »

n2d4 wrote: post #78
gwbas1c wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reverse acquisition? IE, similar to how Disney "bought" Pixar, but much of Pixar's IP overshadows Disney's IP; or how Apple bought Next and the current MacOS is basically NextOS under the hood. It's a technique that companies do to avoid disruption: Buy early stage startups, and by the time they could "disrupt" the parent company, the parent company's management is ready to retire, and the former startup's management…

In what way does Pixar's IP overshadow Disney's? Listing the highest-grossing media franchises [1], Mickey Mouse, Winnie the Pooh, Star Wars, and Disney Princesses are on #2-#5 respectively, while Pixar's top spot is #16 with Cars. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_media...

[deleted]

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

#229

Post by majormajor »

imiric wrote: post #137
laborcontract wrote: post #104

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.…

>If Meta is known for anything besides user privacy violations it's for taking risks that often pay off. [...] 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.

Are you using something that hasn't yet paid off as an example of how their big risks often pay off just because you are personally sure it will have huge ROI?

But I'm not actually sure I agree with the premise.

What risks is Meta known for taking? Instagram and Whatsapp purchases were defensive moves; they were laughed at for the prices not for risk.

Here they are similarly being laughed at for the price.

Is there much risk beyond that?

If Instagram had petered out and people had stayed on Facebook proper, they would've been fine. Same with Whatsapp. It's not like they've been trying to push people away from their core Facebook product. More the opposite - they've used acquisitions to try to push Facebook accounts to more people.

Compare to Apple, letting Mac software flounder for a while while focused on growing the iPhone and iPad business. Risky, worked out. Compare to Microsoft, going down years of dead-ends trying to come up with a next-gen operating system - a big part of their core bread-and-butter - and then having to release the generally-panned Vista because they bet too big on stuff they couldn't realize with Longhorn. Risky, failed. Compare to Snap, even - turning down Meta cash for independence. Risky, kinda meh results? But adding another social media app to a social media company's portfolio? Less so.

VR, on the other hand, does seem like the closest analog here. Buying their way into a non-core-competency space. There they bought the undisputed leader but it still hasn't paid off to date. Here? Eh....

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

#230

Post by detourdog »

oidar wrote: post #68
gwbas1c wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reverse acquisition? IE, similar to how Disney "bought" Pixar, but much of Pixar's IP overshadows Disney's IP; or how Apple bought Next and the current MacOS is basically NextOS under the hood. It's a technique that companies do to avoid disruption: Buy early stage startups, and by the time they could "disrupt" the parent company, the parent company's management is ready to retire, and the former startup's management…

NeXTSTEP not NextOS

If one is really after accuracy NeXT wasn't a start-up at the time of acquisition.
Post reply on HN