Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

481–490 of 507 posts

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

#481
post #322
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off base when considering the likes of Palantir and many others. Not a fan of the person or many of Meta's business practices. But Meta has given a lot back with Llama and PyTorch, among many other open source contributions. Which others in the space are not doing.

I don't think it's a big stretch to say that Meta has not only been more successful than Palantir at mass surveillance, but has also likely caused a greater magnitude of harm (a lot through negligence) when considering events like the genocide in Myanmar.

Imagine the abyss you'd be staring into to do the full analysis of that. Geez. That's dark.

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

#482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The metaverse will happen, IMO. The tech is just not there, yet. Even if it turns out to be wasted money, which I doubt, he's still sitting on almost 2 trillion. Not an L on my book.

Can you explain 2 trillion

What do you mean?

It's this number: 2,000,000,000,000.

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

#483

I have been working at Scale for 2yrs now. Their data is shit, the majority of the contributions live in the 3rd world and all of them use gpt and other big models. I'm eagerly waiting for the AI hype to disappear to see all those corporates lose their money.

gpt laundering as a service?

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

#484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't categorize FAIR as failing. Their job is indeed fundamental research and are still a leading research lab, especially in perception and vision. See SAM2, DINOv2, V-JEPA-2, etc. The "fair" (hah) comparisons of FAIR are not to DeepMind/OAI/Anthropic, but to other publishing research labs like Google Research, NVIDIA Research, and they are doing great by that metric. It does seem that for whatever reason that…

FAIR is failing. Dino and JEPA at least are irrelevant in this age. This is why GenAI exists. GenAI took the good people, the money, the resources and the scope. Zuck tolerates entertains ideas until he doesn’t. It’s clear blue sky research is going to be pushed even further into the background. For perception reasons you can’t fire AI researchers or disband an ai research org but it’s clear which way this is headed.…

This is why GenAI exists. GenAI took the good people, the money, the resources and the scope. Zuck tolerates entertains ideas until he doesn’t. It’s clear blue sky research is going to be pushed even further into the background

I agree with most this, I just think we have different meanings of failure. FAIR has "failed" in the eyes of Meta leadership in that they have not converted into a "frontier AI lab" like Deepmind, and as a result they are being sidelined (much like Google Research, which I admit was a bad example). But the orgs were founded to pursue basic research and I think it's not the a failure of the scientists at FAIR that management has failed to properly spin out GenAI. Of course, it sounds like your metric is "AI/LLM competitiveness" and we have no disagreements that FAIR is failing on that end (I just don't think its only important or right metric to be judging FAIR).

* Normatively, I think that it's good to have monopolistic big tech firms be funding basic open research as a counterbalance to academia and also because good basic research requires lots of compute these days. It feels somewhat shortsighted to reallocate all resources to LLM research.

* DINO and JEPA aren't particularly useful for language modeling, but are still important for embodiment/robotics/3D, which indeed seems to be the "next big thing." Also, to their credit, FAIR is still doing interesting and useful work on LLMs for encoders [1], training dynamics [2], and multimodality [3], just not training frontier models.

** GenAI took the money, scope, and resources, but not sure about the good people lol, that seems to be their problem.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.01017 [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.24832 [3] https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.14164

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

#485
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was spending $5b a year on whatever the metaverse was supposed to be and even renamed the company. Does anyone here use it? I think he weathers what I consider failure well. Or, conversely he can take big risks without too much blowback.

He would still be unbelievably rich even if Meta went bankrupt. He is in the unique position to have majority control of one of the world's largest tech companies and can pretty much use it to do what ever he wants. I doubt he cares much about Facebook past it's ability to generate money at this point.

If Meta went bankrupt, that means his Meta shares would be worthless. How would he still be rich?

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

#486

I have been working at Scale for 2yrs now. Their data is shit, the majority of the contributions live in the 3rd world and all of them use gpt and other big models. I'm eagerly waiting for the AI hype to disappear to see all those corporates lose their money.

gpt laundering as a service?

Exactly

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

#487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but that anecdote is orthogonal to your original claim. No mention of a lawsuit or actually having to pay extra fees. And "rogue installs" essentially means "using copyrighted software in a quantity that exceeds what we actually paid for", i.e. theft.

> No mention of ... actually having to pay extra fees. > If any offending installations were found, they would charge the company the cost of the license for every machine. I don’t think you read that correctly. To use an analogy, it’s similar to Costco requiring me to pay again for every item in my cart because I forgot to ring up a carton of eggs when I went through self-checkout. Maybe you don’t call that “extra”…

No, I read it correctly, did you? They didn't say they ultimately had to pay any of those fees, just that the violation fees were dangled as a threat. They explicitly said "there was a huge firedrill to root out any rogue installs" which strongly implies they did not actually pay any of those extra violation fees, because they rooted out those license violations before being charged!

So $0 contribution to Oracle's revenue from fees in that anecdote, was my point. (The key word there in my comment was "actually", as in actually paying the fees, whereas you focused on the word "extra" instead. I don't debate that if the fees were actually paid, then yes that is quite obviously an extra fee.)

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

#488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i know a dozen who come close but none who did the same, nor who had the entrepreneurial bent so early... curious who are these people you have in mind?

Alexandr is just a dude, like you or me, with his own life and his own worries and his own problems. He’s more like the rest of us than you seem to think.

as his former bughouse partner, i agree :)

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

#489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not trying to diminish his academic accomplishments, but it isn't that uncommon for experienced freshman students to just jump straight into advanced topics. If you're the type that has been coding since you were 10, been active in Olympic teams, or whatever, you can probably do just fine in such courses. If anything, you'd be bored with some undergrad courses.

yes. exactly. that was me. chess analogy: Alex is Magnus, whereas I'm like Sam Shankland or something.

being way too generous lol

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

#490
Looks like they are distributing a dividend to shareholders (14$, well below $25), and then diluting everyone.

Has anyone heard a bull case on being a minority shareholder in Scale.ai after this deal? Seems a bit like late stake investors are getting thrown under a bus.

Post reply on HN