4 ms·

A simple Google search would show how much FB has contributed to the AI/ML community. I hate seeing these comments in HN. No substance. Just saying whatever to

A simple Google search would show how much FB has contributed to the AI/ML community. I hate seeing these comments in HN. No substance. Just saying whatever to jump into the FB hate bus.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
PartiallyTyped 4y ago
While there have been a few public failures that were rather ... embarrassing ... and had their plug pulled off quickly, I don't think anyone can, in good conscience, claim that Meta has not been supportive of the AI/ML community, both in terms of research output and in terms of tooling [1]. [1] https://pytorch.org https://pytorch.org
- moregrist 4y ago
  Exactly. These are all R&D tools and papers. I think the criticism is quite valid if you look at actual products. It’s also a fair criticism of most of big tech wrt AI, and a lot of AI/ML: there’s a lot of cool-sounding R&D, but so far there are few (arguably no) resulting products. Maybe we’re starting to see that change, maybe not. Bing/ChatGPT is promising, but ... nascent. A lot of this has echoes of the self-driving revolution. Whenever I read techno-optimists on this site, I cannot help but think back to 2014-ish when they all predicted that there would be no truckers in 5 years and dramatic changes to infrastructure to support a wave of self-driving vehicles.
neuronic 4y ago
It is also questionable EVEN IF Facebook is just throwing cash at fads and has stopped being innovative. That doesn't mean shareholders will lose out which is the ONLY thing that counts. The inevitable nature of large corporations is to become bureaucratic and slow, yet many of them exist for decades without being innovative. It's sufficient to just buy out whoever is innovative in the market - Microsoft just bought into OpenAI big time. Other than incrementally developing its 40yo operating system Microsoft copies AWS, Netflix for games, Sublime Text and Macbooks while throwing some random cash at garage projects that amount to effectively nothing that can exist without subsidies (Hololens).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jillesvangurp 4y ago
It's a valid point though. There's a difference between running a research lab and a product organization. I used to work in a research lab (Nokia Research). Lots of cool research. But product divisions routinely ignored what we were doing. Not invented here, not a priority, we're busy moving deck chairs around on our Titanic, etc. Very little industrial research translates into customer/product/share holder value. Facebook, like several other big companies, pays a lot to keep some very smart people on staff. They constantly come up with new stuff that they publish about and that also result in patents. That's not the issue. However, from there to product features is where it goes wrong. Most of Facebook's product portfolio hasn't changed substantially for quite some time. And they haven't really launched any noteworthy new stuff either. Publishing a paper doesn't really count. It's nice and it will no doubt help other companies to succeed where Facebook is clearly struggling to succeed.
- loudmax 4y ago
  That is my outsider impression of what's going on at Google. The ChatGPT interface that Microsoft is rolling out absolutely should have come from Google first. I'm sure they actually have the technology, and they've probably had it for years now. What Google lacks is any sort of leadership or discipline to turn a prototype into a marketable product.
  - jillesvangurp 4y ago
    I didn't want to bring it up but, yes, Google is obviously struggling with the disconnect between what they are doing in terms of research and product as well. And they are pouring billions into the research. They even spun off alphabet as a company to do all the blue sky research. With so far not a stellar track record. Mostly their revenue is just Google running on autopilot and vacuuming up ad revenue wherever it can. Most large companies struggle with this. A lot of former industrial research labs have either disappeared entirely or became a shadow of their former selves. IBM, HP, etc. used to do lots of blue sky research. Xerox Parc was a big deal and they obviously failed to productize. But of course inspired Apple and quite a few others. It's a tough topic. I don't think many companies have figured this out. There are positive examples of course but mostly the return on investment for open ended research in a corporate setting is not as high as it should be considering the valid research that gets published and then fails to get monetized by the companies doing the research. OpenAI, is the smart counter move. Spin off a company, fund it, and then license back the technology. MS seems to have learned from it's past efforts in MS Research.
uoaei 4y ago
You are missing the "now" in the parent comment. They are talking about actions in the last year or so. Meta's open source projects that they own are maintained now by eager volunteers, not staff. Anybody could see how Facebook is floundering, Instagram can see the iceberg approaching, and changing anything major in Whatsapp will piss off literally billions of people. They've cornered themselves, so now they're reaching for literally anything that could save them. That seems reasonable as a failing company, except when every action they make affects entire markets and legitimizes trends on a very shaky basis.

A simple Google search would show how much FB has contributed to the AI/ML community. I hate seeing these comments in HN. No substance. Just saying whatever to jump into the FB hate bus.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

PartiallyTyped 4y ago

While there have been a few public failures that were rather ... embarrassing ... and had their plug pulled off quickly, I don't think anyone can, in good conscience, claim that Meta has not been supportive of the AI/ML community, both in terms of research output and in terms of tooling [1]. [1] https://pytorch.org https://pytorch.org

moregrist 4y ago
Exactly. These are all R&D tools and papers. I think the criticism is quite valid if you look at actual products. It’s also a fair criticism of most of big tech wrt AI, and a lot of AI/ML: there’s a lot of cool-sounding R&D, but so far there are few (arguably no) resulting products. Maybe we’re starting to see that change, maybe not. Bing/ChatGPT is promising, but ... nascent. A lot of this has echoes of the self-driving revolution. Whenever I read techno-optimists on this site, I cannot help but think back to 2014-ish when they all predicted that there would be no truckers in 5 years and dramatic changes to infrastructure to support a wave of self-driving vehicles.

neuronic 4y ago

It is also questionable EVEN IF Facebook is just throwing cash at fads and has stopped being innovative. That doesn't mean shareholders will lose out which is the ONLY thing that counts. The inevitable nature of large corporations is to become bureaucratic and slow, yet many of them exist for decades without being innovative. It's sufficient to just buy out whoever is innovative in the market - Microsoft just bought into OpenAI big time. Other than incrementally developing its 40yo operating system Microsoft copies AWS, Netflix for games, Sublime Text and Macbooks while throwing some random cash at garage projects that amount to effectively nothing that can exist without subsidies (Hololens).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jillesvangurp 4y ago

It's a valid point though. There's a difference between running a research lab and a product organization. I used to work in a research lab (Nokia Research). Lots of cool research. But product divisions routinely ignored what we were doing. Not invented here, not a priority, we're busy moving deck chairs around on our Titanic, etc. Very little industrial research translates into customer/product/share holder value. Facebook, like several other big companies, pays a lot to keep some very smart people on staff. They constantly come up with new stuff that they publish about and that also result in patents. That's not the issue. However, from there to product features is where it goes wrong. Most of Facebook's product portfolio hasn't changed substantially for quite some time. And they haven't really launched any noteworthy new stuff either. Publishing a paper doesn't really count. It's nice and it will no doubt help other companies to succeed where Facebook is clearly struggling to succeed.

loudmax 4y ago
That is my outsider impression of what's going on at Google. The ChatGPT interface that Microsoft is rolling out absolutely should have come from Google first. I'm sure they actually have the technology, and they've probably had it for years now. What Google lacks is any sort of leadership or discipline to turn a prototype into a marketable product.
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  I didn't want to bring it up but, yes, Google is obviously struggling with the disconnect between what they are doing in terms of research and product as well. And they are pouring billions into the research. They even spun off alphabet as a company to do all the blue sky research. With so far not a stellar track record. Mostly their revenue is just Google running on autopilot and vacuuming up ad revenue wherever it can. Most large companies struggle with this. A lot of former industrial research labs have either disappeared entirely or became a shadow of their former selves. IBM, HP, etc. used to do lots of blue sky research. Xerox Parc was a big deal and they obviously failed to productize. But of course inspired Apple and quite a few others. It's a tough topic. I don't think many companies have figured this out. There are positive examples of course but mostly the return on investment for open ended research in a corporate setting is not as high as it should be considering the valid research that gets published and then fails to get monetized by the companies doing the research. OpenAI, is the smart counter move. Spin off a company, fund it, and then license back the technology. MS seems to have learned from it's past efforts in MS Research.

uoaei 4y ago

You are missing the "now" in the parent comment. They are talking about actions in the last year or so. Meta's open source projects that they own are maintained now by eager volunteers, not staff. Anybody could see how Facebook is floundering, Instagram can see the iceberg approaching, and changing anything major in Whatsapp will piss off literally billions of people. They've cornered themselves, so now they're reaching for literally anything that could save them. That seems reasonable as a failing company, except when every action they make affects entire markets and legitimizes trends on a very shaky basis.