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

Post by trhway » Fri, Jun 13, 2025, 10:52 PM UTC

mattlondon wrote: post #200

rybosome wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wondered that. But then huge revenue streams for Scale basically disappear immediately. Is it worth Meta spending all that money just to stop competitors using Scale? There are competitors who I am sure would be very eager to get the money from Google, OpenAI, Anthropic etc that was previously going to Scale. So Meta spends all that money for basically nothing because the competitors will just fill the gap if Scale…

Post by arthurcolle » Fri, Jun 13, 2025, 11:24 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #311

DebtDeflation wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mean to imply he started it alone. Though his co-founder Lucy Guo is almost as bizarre of a story as Wang himself. I'm curious, what were they doing before data labeling?

> Though his co-founder Lucy Guo is almost as bizarre Well, kind of. I went to school with Lucy, and she was a completely different person back then. Sure she was among the more social of the CS majors, but the gliz and glamour and weirdness with Lucy came after she got her fame and fortune. I suspect a similar thing happen with Wang. When you are in charge of a billion dollar business, you tend to grow into the bill…

Post by bhl » Fri, Jun 13, 2025, 11:36 PM UTC

ml-anon wrote: post #405

nostromo wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meta is struggling here for the same reason Microsoft couldn’t stop the talent bleed to Google back in the day. Even if you’re giving massive cash and stock comp, OpenAI has a lot more upside potential than Meta.

This is wrong. OpenAI has almost no upside now at these valuations and there is a >2 year effective cliff on any possibility of liquidity whereas Meta is paying 7-8 figures liquid. Metas problem is that everyone knows that it’s a dumpster fire so you will only attract people who only care about comp which is typically not the main motivation for the best people.

Post by ml-anon » Fri, Jun 13, 2025, 11:46 PM UTC

bhl wrote: post #415

ml-anon wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wrong. OpenAI has almost no upside now at these valuations and there is a >2 year effective cliff on any possibility of liquidity whereas Meta is paying 7-8 figures liquid. Metas problem is that everyone knows that it’s a dumpster fire so you will only attract people who only care about comp which is typically not the main motivation for the best people.

It's not a 2 year cliff: it's 6 months before vesting, then 2 years before you can sell.

Post by pishpash » Fri, Jun 13, 2025, 11:50 PM UTC

gmd63 wrote: post #381

mooreds wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The host on this podcast[0] had a good point about the "investment". It was really a merger, but framed as an investment to sidestep regulators. Key attributes: * CEO works for meta * almost but not quite a majority stake taken 0: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/world-bank-cuts-u-s-gr...

These types of "Aaackshually" business strategies are repulsive, and are evidence that these people who wield immense responsibility do not deserve it.