I guess OpenAI got a good deal at 6.5b for Jony Ive. >Supposedly, Llama 4 did perform well on benchmarks, but the user experience was so bad that people have accused Meta of cooking the books. This is one of those things that I've noticed. I don't understand the benchmarks, and my usage certainly isn't going to be wide ranging as benchmarks, but I hear "OMG this AI and benchmarks" and then I go use it and it's not an…
Meta Spends $14B to Hire a Single Guy
41–50 of 77 posts
Re: Meta Spends $14B to Hire a Single Guy
#42Re: Meta Spends $14B to Hire a Single Guy
#43The notion that Scale AI's data is of secondary value to Wang seems wrong: data-labeling in the era of agentic RL is more sophisticated than the pejorative view of outsourcing mechanical turk work at slave wages to third world workers, it's about expert demonstrations and work flows, the shape of which are highly useful for deducing the sorts of RL environments frontier labs are using for post-training. This is likely the primary motivator.
> LLMs are pretty easy to make, lots of people know how to do it — you learn how in any CS program worth a damn.
This also doesn't cohere with my understanding. There's only a few hundred people in the world that can train competitive models at scale, and the process is laden with all sorts of technical tricks and trade secrets. It's what made the deepseek reports and results so surprising. I don't think the toy neural network one gets assigned to create in an undergrad course is a helpful comparison.
Relatedly, the idea that progress in ML is largely stochastic and so horizontal orgs are the only sensible structure seems like a weird conclusion to draw from the record. Saying Schmidhuber is a one hit wonder, or "The LLM paper was written basically entirely by folks for whom "Attention is All You Need" is their singular claim to fame" neglects a long history of foundational contributions in the case of the former, and misses the prolific contributions of Shazeer in the latter. Alec Radford is another notable omission as a consistent superstar researcher. To the point about organizational structure, OpenAI famously made concentrated bets contra the decentralized experimentation of Google and kicked off this whole race. Deepmind is significantly more hierarchical than Brain was and from comments by Pichai, that seemed like part of the motivation for the merger.
Re: Meta Spends $14B to Hire a Single Guy
#44> Meta is falling behind in the AI race How so?
But even if they were, it's not immediately clear how they plan to make any money with having an open source model. So far, their applications of their AI, i.e. fake AI characters within their social media, are some of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of.
Re: Meta Spends $14B to Hire a Single Guy
#45There are three centres of "AI" gravity: GenAI, FAIR & RL-R
Fair is fucked, they've been passed about, from standalone, to RL-R then to "production" under industrial dipshit Cox. A lot of people have left, or been kicked out. It was a power house, and PSC (the 6month performance charade killed it)
GenAI was originally a nice tight and productive team. Then the facebook disease of doubling the team every 2 months took over. Instead of making good products and dealing with infra scaling issues, 80% of the staff are trying to figure out what they are supposed to be doing. Moreover most of the leadership have no fucking clue how to do applied ML. Also they don't know what the product will be. So the answer is A/B testing what ever coke dream Cox dreamt up that week.
RL-R has the future, but they are tied to either Avatars, which is going to bomb. It'll bomb because its run by an prick who wants perfect rather than deliverable. Moreover splats perform way better than the dumbarse fully ML end-to-end system they spend the last 15 billion trying to make.
Then there is the hand interaction org, which has burnt through not quite as much cash as Avatars, but relies on a wrist device that has to be so tight it feels like a fucking handcuff. That and they've not managed to deliver any working prototype at scale.
The display team promised too much and wildly underdelivered, meaning that orion wasn't possible as a consumer product. Which lets the write team off the hook for not having a comfortable system.
Then there is the mapping team who make research glasses that hovers up any and all personal information with wild abandon.
RL-R had lots of talent. But the "hire to fire" system means that you can't actually do any risky research, unless you have the personal favour of your VP. Plus, even if you do perfect research. getting it to product is a nightmare.
Re: Meta Spends $14B to Hire a Single Guy
#46I'd push back on a couple things here. The notion that Scale AI's data is of secondary value to Wang seems wrong: data-labeling in the era of agentic RL is more sophisticated than the pejorative view of outsourcing mechanical turk work at slave wages to third world workers, it's about expert demonstrations and work flows, the shape of which are highly useful for deducing the sorts of RL environments frontier labs are…
- idk I've trained a lot of models in my time. It's true that there's an arcane art to training LLMs, but it's wrong that this is somehow unlearnable. If I can do it out of undergrad with no prior training and 3 months of slamming my head into a wall, so can others. (Large LLMs are imo not that much different from small ones in terms of training complexity. Tools like torch and libraries like megatron make these things much easier ofc)
- there are a lot of fantastic researchers and I don't mean to disparage anyone, including anyone I didn't mention. Still, I stand by my beliefs on ml. Big changes in architecture, new learning techniques, and training tips and tricks come from a lot of people, all of whom are talking to each other in a very decentralized way.
My opinions are my own, ymmv
Re: Meta Spends $14B to Hire a Single Guy
#47> Meta is falling behind in the AI race How so?
Their latest Llama is a couple steps behind the frontier. Google, Anthropic, and OpenAI are all well ahead. They missed the boat on LLMs and have been playing catch up.
Re: Meta Spends $14B to Hire a Single Guy
#48This post doesn't quite comprehend why Meta made a 49% investment instead of an acquisition. The path Meta chose avoided global regulatory review. FTC, DOJ, etc and their international counterparts could have chosen to review and block an outright acquisition. They have no authority to review a minority investment. Scale shareholders received a comparable financial outcome to an acquisition, and also avoided the regu…
>They have no authority to review a minority investment. That's just wrong. Partial acquisitions and minority shareholdings don't allow you to bypass antitrust investigations. See 15 U.S.C. §18 for example. It is similar in the EU.
Re: Meta Spends $14B to Hire a Single Guy
#49The last two paragraphs sure contorted my face into an…interesting expression. I’m confused at how Zuck has proven himself to be a particularly dynamic and capable CEO compared to peers. Facebook hasn’t had new product success outside of acquisitions in at least a decade. The fact that a newcomer like TikTok came and ate Instagram’s lunch is downright embarrassing. Meta Quest is a cash-bleeding joke of a side quest t…
> Facebook hasn’t had new product success outside of acquisitions in at least a decade. Wrong metric to evaluate dynamism and capability. Also the Ray Ban Metas have been pretty successful. They consistently sell out
Re: Meta Spends $14B to Hire a Single Guy
#50Meta is so profitable with its ad network it can spend tens of billions of dollars on money-losing losing projects and the stock still keeps going up, and the PE ratio is not that high either. Crazy.