why does this page have the same look as ssi.inc? feels kind of strange to copy that of all things?
If you "view source", you'll see that the difference is day and night. ssi.inc is a simple html website. This Meta memo is a JS framework monster.
Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
91–100 of 184 posts
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#92Reads as RIP Metaverse to me. Any time a CEO publishes such empty, wordy essays, it's probably earnings reporting time. I can't shake the feeling it's a public subreply at one of or a cluster of doubting investors, who started to doubt the CEOs vision for the company, or find the lack of one on a certain topic concerning.
FWIW, today is Meta’s earnings report
That’s exactly why he published this. To justify his insane investment spend. I am not sure if investors will continue to give him a blank check. He’s not spending his money. He’s spending shareholder money to pursue personal projects and endeavors.
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you are yourself a robber baron the likes of Zuck, you should look up this little concept called "class solidarity."
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy here of people seeing greed only in those with more income than them but never in themselves when they accept those generous big-tech, big-finance, big-ad-tech, big-4, big-pharma compensation packages from the evil robber barons they claim to hate. If you hate them so much why are you taking their blood money? Also, there is no class solidarity the way you imagine it in your fantas…
> the big-tech worker is closer to the robber baron Zuckerberg
A big tech worker earning 200k is closer to a minimum wage worker earning 20k per year than Zuckerberg earning 20M per year with net worth of 200B
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, today is Meta’s earnings report
That’s exactly why he published this. To justify his insane investment spend. I am not sure if investors will continue to give him a blank check. He’s not spending his money. He’s spending shareholder money to pursue personal projects and endeavors.
> I am not sure if investors will continue to give him a blank check.
What are they going to do, exactly? They explicitly invested in the company knowing that Zuckerberg would retain full control.
If they can show gross negligence there may be a legal avenue, but it would be pretty hard to justify chasing potentially profitable business ventures, even if they end up failing, as being negligence. Controversial business decisions are not negligence in the eye of the law.
Sure, they can sell their interest in the company — if someone else wants to buy it — but that just moves who the investor is around. That doesn't really change anything.
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
> he might try to change Co’s name again since Meta doesn’t fit the bill anymore. If so, the logical choice would be to change the name from "Meta" to "AGI".
I was thinking they buy Intel and say “we are going to make Intel super. SuperIntel.” Zuck seems to like the term superintelligence over AGI.
They’re two separate concepts
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#96It is possible to hold the following two statements to be true without risk of contradiction: 1. LLMs and "AI" broadly can become a very useful and powerful technology that can have a transformative effect on industry and so on. 2. Talk of "superintelligence" is total horseshit.
This applies precisely to 1970s AI boosters getting way too excited about Prolog and Lisp.
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s exactly why he published this. To justify his insane investment spend. I am not sure if investors will continue to give him a blank check. He’s not spending his money. He’s spending shareholder money to pursue personal projects and endeavors.
> I am not sure if investors will continue to give him a blank check. What are they going to do, exactly? They explicitly invested in the company knowing that Zuckerberg would retain full control. If they can show gross negligence there may be a legal avenue, but it would be pretty hard to justify chasing potentially profitable business ventures, even if they end up failing, as being negligence. Controversial busines…
Well, very true. They let him spend $100B plus on a mediocre VR devices that’s not improved all that much under Zuck. I keep thinking, what if they took that $100B and invested in Nvidia.
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#98How 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 .
I think it’s too easy to get anthropocentric and 1D about intelligence. That dog understands things about the world, important things, that mere humans like Bernoulli could never even dream of.
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#99Anthropic, to their credit, just published that pretty funny paper about how they couldn't get their chatbot to run a single vending machine profitably[1]. Admirable that Mark is so visionary he's skipped straight past Bodega-intelligence to super-intelligence [1] https://www.anthropic.com/research/project-vend-1?ref=blog.m...
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.
Even if that intuition is correct and they can fix the vending machine with a bit more data and RLHF, I fail to see where the "super" comes in here. How the fk are they going to get superintelligent training data? A time machine?
Re: Meta's Vision for Superintelligence
#100This stuff is naive. There's a bunch of people who want a large income (wealth) disparity, and they will fight to preserve it unless you give them an equivalent station in the 'new world'. But you will still need to sustain ex-workers if they can't get normal jobs, and those same people at the top will not tolerate the taxes required to sustain a basic level of living for much wider population. They already can't tol…
>There's a bunch of people who want a large income (wealth) disparity Apart form you of course, so I'm sure you'd be ok if the government would tax your higher than average tech wage till your take home pay would match that of a train conductor's or bus driver's, like in Western Europe, and therefore fix the wage gap you hate so much. Would you like that solution? Caption this: It's only a problem when the people who…
perhaps we can create a sort of a bracket that scales based on the income?