Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division • Hacker News Board

jimbo_joe wrote: post #489

noosphr wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search, after Bert, is very much a commodity. I get better results than Google on segments of common craw using a desktop computer and a research model. Given that Google has decades of scrapes, and more than four gpus to work with, they can do a better job than me. That I beat them right now is nothing short of embarrassing, bordering on an existential threat.

> Search, after Bert, is very much a commodity. > I get better results than Google on segments of common craw using a desktop computer and a research model. For data which hasn't changed since knowledge cutoff - for sure, but for real life web search, being able to get fresh data is a hard requirement.

That is not how encoder only models work.

Re: Meta is axing 600 roles across its AI division

#506

Post by esyir » Wed, Oct 29, 2025, 2:30 PM UTC

janalsncm wrote: post #437

esyir wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels like this is the fundamental flaw with a lot of things not just in the private sector, but the public one too. Look at the FDA, where it's notoriously bogged down in red tape, and the incentives slant heavily towards rejection. This makes getting pharmaceuticals out even more expensive, and raises the overall cost of healthcare. It's too easy to say no, and people prioritize CYA over getting things done. The qu…

I take your broader point but personally I feel like it’s ok if the FDA is cautious. The incentives that bias towards rejection may be “not killing people”.

I deliberately chose the FDA here specifically because of this. The problem here is that on a societal level, we have to be willing to tolerate some risk. If a drug could have saved many, but is rejected because of occasional complications, that sounds like a poor cost benefit analysis.