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

Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 506 posts

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#321

Post by noosphr »

nopurpose wrote: post #320
noosphr wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big tech is suffering from the incumbents disease. What worked well for extracting profits from stable cash cows doesn't work in fields that are moving rapidly. Google et al. were at one point pinnacle technologies too, but this was 20 years ago. Everyone who knew how to work in that environment has moved on or moved up. Were I the CEO of a company like that I'd reduce headcount in the legacy orgs, transition them to…

> Google et al. were at one point pinnacle technologies too, but this was 20 years ago. In 2017 Google literally gave us transformer architecture all current AI boom is based on.

And what did they do with it for the next five years?

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#322

Post by kbelder »

munk-a wrote: post #283
giancarlostoro wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just assume they over hired. Too much hype for AI. Everyone wants to build the framework people use for AI nobody wants to build the actual tools that make AI useful.

My voice activated egg timer is amazing. There are millions of useful small tools that can be built to assist us in a day-to-day manner... I remain skeptical that anyone will come up with a miracle tool that can wholesale replace large sections of the labor market and I think that too much money is chasing after huge solutions where many small products will provide the majority of the gains we're going to get from th…

>My voice activated egg timer is amazing.

Alexa?

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#323

Post by bix6 »

username223 wrote: post #314
bix6 wrote: post #232

I’m kind of surprised Wang is leading AI at Meta? His knowledge is around data labeling which is important sure but is he really the guy to take this to the next level?

A skim of his Wikipedia bio suggests that he's smart, but mostly just interested in making money for himself. Since high school, he's spent time at: some fintech place, a Q-and-A site, MIT briefly, another fintech place, then data labeling and defense contracting. He sounds like a cash-seeking missile to me.

I’ve read a bit about his work at Scale and it’s rather unflattering ie ruthlessly taking advantage of people in other countries.

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#324

Post by jongjong »

dekhn wrote: post #87
ceejayoz wrote: post #3

Because the AI works so well, or because it doesn't? > ”By reducing the size of our team, fewer conversations will be required to make a decision, and each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Wang writes in a memo seen by Axios. That's kinda wild. I'm kinda shocked they put it in writing.

I'm seeing a lot of frustration at the leadership level about product velocity- and much of the frustration is pointed at internal gatekeepers who mainly seem to say no to product releases. My leadership is currently promoting "better to ask forgiveness", or put another way: "a bias towards action". There are definitely limits on this, but it's been helpful when dealing with various internal negotiations. I don't spe…

Makes sense. It's easier to be right by saying no, but this mindset costs great opportunities. People who are interested in their own career management can't innovate.

You can't innovate without taking career-ending risks. You need people who are confident to take career-ending risks repeatedly. There are people out there who do and keep winning. At least on the innovation/tech front. These people need to be in the driver seat.

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#325

Post by rhetocj23 »

KaiserPro wrote: post #141
ceejayoz wrote: post #3

Because the AI works so well, or because it doesn't? > ”By reducing the size of our team, fewer conversations will be required to make a decision, and each person will be more load-bearing and have more scope and impact,” Wang writes in a memo seen by Axios. That's kinda wild. I'm kinda shocked they put it in writing.

They properly fucked FAIR. it was a lead, if not the leading AI lab. then they gave it to Chris Cox, the Midas of shit. It languished in "product" trying to do applied research. The rot had set in by mid 2024 if not earlier. Then someone convinced Zuck that he needed what ever that new kid is, and the rest is history. Meta has too many staff, exceptionally poor leadership, and a performance system that rewards bullsh…

The thing that many, so called smart people, dont realise is that leadership and vision are incredibly scarce traits.

Pure technologists and MBA folks dont have a visionary bone in their body. I always find the Steve Jobs criticism re. his technical contributions hilarious. That wasnt his job. Its much easier to execute on the technical stuff, when theres someone there who is leading the charge on the vision.

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#327

Post by logtrees »

ModernMech wrote: post #266
jobigoud wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume that for any given tool you could make a "tool maker" tool.

You make a tool, then a tool factory, then a tool factory factory, ad infinitum.

Sprinkle in minimization and virtualization and it's extremely cool!

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#328

Post by rhetocj23 »

xeromal wrote: post #268
SoftTalker wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Raises the question though, why is the lawyer talking to you in the first place, and not your manager?

Isn't that the point of these layoffs? Less obfuscation and games of telephone? The more layers introduces inherent lag.

The real question is, how/why did they over-hire in the first place?

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#329

Post by rhetocj23 »

jongjong wrote: post #324
dekhn wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm seeing a lot of frustration at the leadership level about product velocity- and much of the frustration is pointed at internal gatekeepers who mainly seem to say no to product releases. My leadership is currently promoting "better to ask forgiveness", or put another way: "a bias towards action". There are definitely limits on this, but it's been helpful when dealing with various internal negotiations. I don't spe…

Makes sense. It's easier to be right by saying no, but this mindset costs great opportunities. People who are interested in their own career management can't innovate. You can't innovate without taking career-ending risks. You need people who are confident to take career-ending risks repeatedly. There are people out there who do and keep winning. At least on the innovation/tech front. These people need to be in the d…

"You can't innovate without taking career-ending risks."

Its not the job of employees to bear this burden - if you have visionary leadership at the helm, they should be the ones absorbing this pressure. And thats what is missing.

The reality is folks like Zuck were never visionaries. Lets not derail the thread but a) he stole the idea for facebook b) the continued success of Meta comes from its numerous acquisitions and copying its competitors, and not from organic product innovation. Zuckerberg and Musk share a lot more in common than both would like to admit.

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#330

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Rebuff5007 wrote: post #126

From a quick online search: - OpenAI's mission is to build safe AI, and ensure AI's benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible. - Google's mission is to organise the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. - Meta's mission is to build the future of human connection and the technology that makes it possible. Lets just take these three companies, and their self-defined mission…

> What is a productive way they can use LLMs in any of their flagship products today?

It's kind of the other way around, isn't it? Meta has the posts of a billion users with which to train LLMs, so they're in a better position to make them than most others. As for what to do with it then, isn't that that pretty similar no matter who you are?

On top of that, sites are having problems with people going to LLMs instead of going to the site, e.g. why ask a question on Facebook to get an answer tomorrow if ChatGPT can tell you right now? So they either need to get in on the new thing which is threatening to eat their lunch or they need to commoditize it sufficiently that there isn't a major incumbent competitor posed to sit between the users and themselves extracting a margin from the users, or worse, from themselves for directing user traffic their way instead of to whoever outbids them.

Post reply on HN