upvote
None of that makes sense.

What's the end goal? Meta-specific engineering, with baked-in knowledge of how FB, Threads, and WhatsApp work? General and/or coding products to compete with Anthropic and OpenAI? Some special Magic Thing which only Meta can invent which will bedazzle Meta's users?

You don't need giant datasets unless you know what you're going to do with them. OpAI and Anthropic are having enough issues making their products profitable. And those are, if not beloved, then at least respected, with a real, if patchy, reputation for usefulness.

What was Meta's pitch in this market? There were hints of interest when LeCun was still doing original R&D, and there was some distant possibility of a next-gen revolutionary product.

But now the goal seems to be to flail around doing something incoherently AI-branded with no obvious strategy.

The troops are being marched around, but no one knows where the battle is supposed to be.

reply
Ai remains a solution looking for a problem.

Code autocomplete is a success, password reset via ai is a failure - everything else ... still busy tokenmaxxxing in search of a problem it fits into.

reply
They are making more money than ever before. Maybe Meta leadership doesn’t really care about having a coherent strategy at this point. They can afford to flail around to see if something sticks. Reminds me of Rich kids who have ability to travel the world and find themselves before settling into a career
reply
One problem is that the AI agent market is fiercely competitive. Why build when you can buy? For the foreseeable future there will be a number of competitive models on the "efficient frontier" and I don't think one vendor will pull ahead.

In that market you can build a model and spend a lot of money on it and at best get something that's on the same frontier as everybody else but just as likely end up with uncompetitive models like the ones they have now.

You might save a bit running your own models, doing your own inference, etc. Why not take advantage of "last mover advantage" and buy whatever is best when you need it and figure the odds are good that everybody else is going to buy more GPUs than they need and as a large customer you'll be able to buy in bulk at fire sale prices?

reply
That makes sense in a way, but remember that Meta had previously seen some brief developer glory in the initial Llama release. Going the off-the-shelf route would essentially be giving up on being on the technology frontier in this area, and not monetizing their knowledge assets.
reply
The most effective use of that knowledge might be feeding it into RAG instead of feeding into the base of the pyramid.
reply
>I think most of the substantive criticism of Zuckerberg has been about burning funds.

I'm not in the org myself I know some Meta SWEs tangentially. My understanding is that the biggest criticism is just the chaos of it all. Jumping constantly from one thing to another like headless chickens and accomplishing nothing.

It created an environment where it's kind of impossible to plan and progress your career.

reply
While I mostly agree with your post, I do want to point out one thing:

> Or he could release a model trained largely by existing open weights models. Which without some huge breakthrough probably has no chance of surpassing them, so is pointless.

This seems to be categorically untrue. Composer 2.5 is a substantial improvement on its underlying Kimi base model.

reply
If that is backed up by benchmarks then maybe they should imitate whatever Cursor did. What did they do?

They may eventually have to do that. Or they might be starting with an existing Llama model. Maybe I should have said "huge breakthrough or additional dataset".

reply
> I think most of the substantive criticism of Zuckerberg has been about burning funds.

The 2017 Rohingya massacre in Myanmar? They handed him the death toll. He filed it under growth.

reply