571–580 of 615 posts
His own ideas always flop.
Zuck thought he was gonna make a VR MMO at your job. That is basically where his head is at.
Smart glasses might even be a thing, but not coming from Zuck
Everything under his direction is a flop. Basically one of the biggest idiots in all of tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimer, I work on Gemma and open models at Deepmind and the opinions here are my own There were open models from EleutherAI (GPT-Neo), Google Brain (T5X, Bert), and HuggingFace was promoting open models (and others doing open work I haven't listed here) all prior to 2023 and the big Chatgpt moment. https://github.com/EleutherAI/gpt-neo/releases https://github.com/google-research/bert https://github.com/google-res…
Google had done much to lay the framework for current models (and is currently doing good stuff with Gemma). But after ChatGPT took off I don’t think Google continued to release any big models freely before meta released its models (maybe it was because Google didn’t have any models at all during the time)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I made no value judgment about it. I merely note that it’s a game. Meta is not being altruistic or doing anything for the “good” of humanity or whatever. To be clear, I like competition with companies releasing open weight models.
Yeah I didn't mean to imply I was contradicting you, I meant my comment to expand on your point with my own value judgement that this kind of competition is actually quite a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Applying value judgements to corporate bodies or institutions as if they have individual agency is a fallacy anyways. We should always look at these things materially. "Meta" can't be good or evil, because an idea can't have a morality. It's comprised of the individuals who make the decisions, sure, but those individuals are always going to be motivated by a plethora of reasons which are often contradictory, most not…
Would you say it is a fallacy to apply such value judgements to say, the institutions of the National Socialist Party (Nazis), the KKK, the KGB, etc? How about a company whose business was selling slaves? To be clear, I'm not saying being an employee of Meta is comparable to being a member of the aforementioned groups. But I don't think it is always a fallcy to apply a value judgement to an institution.
Let me first clarify what I am not saying. I am not saying that these institutions do not create evil, or commit evil acts and should not be resisted or destroyed. If we truly want these things to stop happening, material analysis is the only way to really address the root of the problem.
We can easily see that fascism was a result of the twisted incentive structure of colonial empire, the evolution of state corporatism as an economic mode, and rabid anti-communism rolled into one, etc etc. What I'm trying to say is that if your take away was just that Hitler was a bad guy and the Nazis were evil (which they very well may be), then you're doomed to repeat these events because this isn't a real analysis. It's not just that he was evil, it's that the socioeconomics lined up in such a way that allowed these things to happen. There will always be bad people seeking to take advantage of conditions, we will never be able to control that. What we can do is apply material analysis to events and try and determine the root cause of them, so we can prevent them from happening again.
What does this have to do with Meta? Well, my point it, Meta doesn't suck because Zuckerberg sucks. He very well may or may not, but that's not alalysis. Meta sucks because the incentive structure surrounding the attention economy is fetid and rotten, and that's a problem with all of us. Thats a problem within our society that allows these types of things to happen, and we ignore that at our own peril, just as we ignore the material reality that lead to the Holocaust by saying it happened because "Hitler and the Nazis were evil and that's that."
Comments here are surprising to me. I get folks don’t like Zuckerberg and his company and don’t trust his intentions… I don’t either. But this is an unquestionably good thing right?. The more open source software out there the better. And the more open weights or even over source AI stuff the better too right? More competition the better generally speaking I think. Unless I’m missing something and am getting this who…
He could give his entire fortune to UNICEF and retire as a monk, I would still probably think this is part of a scheme.
But yeah advocating for open source anything is a good thing, I guess. Ironic if you think about he's been fighting to keep FB's algorithms hidden.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Applying value judgements to corporate bodies or institutions as if they have individual agency is a fallacy anyways. We should always look at these things materially. "Meta" can't be good or evil, because an idea can't have a morality. It's comprised of the individuals who make the decisions, sure, but those individuals are always going to be motivated by a plethora of reasons which are often contradictory, most not…
When the material conditions and the people at the top of all of the corporate world lead to decisions with awful ethical implications there's conclusions that should be reached.
Don't mistake my comment for arguing against criticism of institutions, but that arguing whether or not something is "good" or "bad" doesn't draw you to a conclusion that is any more eor less substantive than that analysis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's already been trained. GDM said it was going to be released and it hasn't yet. Not sure why so much snark
Don’t ask engineers at big companies for release dates, they either don’t know or are not at liberty to say.
"Oh no, a company and its people in it are inconvenienced by what people want them to do, don't even bother vocalizing your desires!"