Meta's Vision for Superintelligence • Hacker News Board

Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence

#51

Post by 9rx » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 1:58 PM UTC

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #21

colesantiago wrote: post #2

I don't buy these Superintelligence claims from Meta of 'abundance' and 'humans are free to do other things' as they are tied to Wall St and earnings. It is always abundance for the super rich, scarcity for those in jobs. How can I be free to do my gardening whenever I want when the landlord is asking for $11K rent in my SF flat? So eventually they will do the opposite of this 'vision' and put this super intelligence…

> How can I be free to do my gardening whenever I want when the landlord is asking for $11K rent in my SF flat? This is the fatal flaw. It's been recognized explicitly for at least 140 years that the price of land rent rises in lockstep with productivity increases, guaranteeing there is no "escape velocity" for the labor class regardless of how good technology gets.

Of course, that's why experts started pushing college/university as the way to find escape, with an understanding that people could use its research facilities to create capital instead of falling into the labor class.

But it was ultimately lost in translation. The layman heard: Go to college/university to become a more appealing laborer to employers. And thus nothing improved for the people; the promises of things like higher income never occurred — incomes have held stagnant.

Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence

#52

Post by aschobel » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 1:58 PM UTC

> We believe the benefits of superintelligence should be shared with the world as broadly as possible. That said, superintelligence will raise novel safety concerns. We'll need to be rigorous about mitigating these risks and careful about what we choose to open source. Still, we believe that building a free society requires that we aim to empower people as much as possible.

So maybe no more open source because of "safety"?

Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence

#53

Post by criddell » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 1:59 PM UTC

khelavastr wrote: post #4

How is "superintelligence" defined?

I define it as smarter than humans. The same way a dog will never understand L'Hôpital's rule, there are probably things that human beings will never understand but future AIs will. I'd call those AIs superintelligent.

Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence

#54

Post by FergusArgyll » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 1:59 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #48

techpineapple wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why embarrassing? Having one failure means you can’t try again?

LLMs are not going to fundamentally reshape society. Productivity will go up a couple percent, the profits from that productivity will go to the richest people. Some jobs will be made redundant, some new jobs will be created. That's it. Same as it ever was.

That's your opinion. It may be correct but it's not embarrassing for a CEO to have different opinion that you

Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence

#55

Post by coldpie » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 2:00 PM UTC

FergusArgyll wrote: post #54

coldpie wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs are not going to fundamentally reshape society. Productivity will go up a couple percent, the profits from that productivity will go to the richest people. Some jobs will be made redundant, some new jobs will be created. That's it. Same as it ever was.

That's your opinion. It may be correct but it's not embarrassing for a CEO to have different opinion that you

It's embarrassing to me as an American that the people who are leading our society are so plainly in the loony bin.

Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence

#56

Post by throwmeoutplzdo » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 2:00 PM UTC

schmorptron wrote: post #15

AIorNot wrote: post #3

Is he renaming the company again?

if the way they are explicitly starting to optimize llm chats for engagements and friend-like behaviour, he'll just need to switch around some letters to call it Mate

Or Meat, if they were completely honest about their users’ role in the equation

Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence

#57

Post by abxyz » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 2:01 PM UTC

grimpy wrote: post #42

why does this page have the same look as ssi.inc? feels kind of strange to copy that of all things?

its a stylistic choice, it’s a statement: content is all that matters. Brutalist websites have been around for a long time.

https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/

Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence

#58

Post by sailingparrot » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 2:02 PM UTC

> We'll need to be rigorous about mitigating these risks and careful about what we choose to open source.

Here we go, predictably pulling the oldest trick in the book, just two weeks after it was reported [1] that the Superintelligence leadership was discussing moving to closed source for their best models, not for any risk mitigation reason, but for competitive reasons.

Also,

> As recently as 200 years ago, 90% of people were farmers growing food to survive. Advances in technology have steadily freed much of humanity to focus less on subsistence and more on the pursuits we choose. At each step, people have used our newfound productivity to achieve more than was previously possible, pushing the frontiers of science and health, as well as spending more time on creativity, culture, relationships, and enjoying life.

Yea about that... Sure Mark can choose to just fly on his private Hawaiian Island, or is Tahoe bunker and mess around with metaverse and AI and whatever he chooses. 99.9% of the population has an old regular job that they go to for subsistence. Michael from north dakota has not been doing bookeeping for SMEs because this was always the pursuit of his dreams. I also see no reason at all to believe we spend more time on creativity, culture, relationships or enjoying life than before. Especially that last point is in free fall over the last 50 years by the look every single mental well being metric around.

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/14/technology/meta-superinte...

Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence

#59

Post by FirmwareBurner » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 2:02 PM UTC

9rx wrote: post #51

sorcerer-mar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can I be free to do my gardening whenever I want when the landlord is asking for $11K rent in my SF flat? This is the fatal flaw. It's been recognized explicitly for at least 140 years that the price of land rent rises in lockstep with productivity increases, guaranteeing there is no "escape velocity" for the labor class regardless of how good technology gets.

Of course, that's why experts started pushing college/university as the way to find escape, with an understanding that people could use its research facilities to create capital instead of falling into the labor class. But it was ultimately lost in translation. The layman heard: Go to college/university to become a more appealing laborer to employers. And thus nothing improved for the people; the promises of things l…

>people could use its research facilities to create capital

This is just survivorship bias. Of course most people choose the employment route since very few people are gonna become good researchers with valuable ideas, and even fewer of those have the ability to become successful business owners, being a good researcher is not enough.

And money doesn't just rain from the sky, you still need money to make money.

Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence

#60

Post by frahs » Wed, Jul 30, 2025, 2:03 PM UTC

blibble wrote: post #27

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic also expects that superintelligence will be reached in the somewhat near future. The intuition is that there's just not that much distance between a chatbot that can manage a vending machine poorly and a chatbot that can manage it well.

that intuition is wrong

[citation needed]