Meta announced Wednesday that it is laying off 600 employees in its artificial intelligence division while still hiring for its superintelligence lab.

This is an interesting choice; a big part of AI-mania has been corporations tripping over themselves to prove how “all-in” they are on AI. In firing a bunch of AI staff, Meta risks looking like they’re not committed enough to it. Are things starting to change? Is this all-in posture no longer important? (We can only hope.)

  • Emilie Easie@lemmynsfw.com
    11·
    3 days ago

    I haven’t seen much evidence that it’s capable of much more than producing spam. I mean, that’s not harmless either, but yeah.

    • Canaconda@lemmy.ca
      1·
      3 days ago

      1. AI’s abilities aren’t static. The knowledge of the person using the AI is very much a factor. Case and point; I personally know a dev who bought a machine to run their own code agent and uses it to great success because they know how to break the task down and control quality.

      2. It’s not how you prompt the task, it’s what tasks you prompt. AI is slop at human things… but computer things are easy mode. If used correctly it can allow 1 person to affect cyber attacks on a scale that would previously require entire teams of human hackers.

      https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/hacker-used-ai-automate-unprecedented-cybercrime-spree-anthropic-says-rcna227309

      https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/24_0927_ia_aep-impact-ai-on-criminal-and-illicit-activities.pdf (Note: this is a pre-trump report)

      • Emilie Easie@lemmynsfw.com
        11·
        3 days ago

        My abilities aren’t static, either, but if I claimed that in a couple of years I’m going to be outrunning Sha’Carri Richardson, it would make sense for you to expect some evidence from me beyond just “I’m full of potential though!” before you really believed me.

        If used correctly it can allow 1 person to affect cyber attacks on a scale that would previously require entire teams of human hackers.

        Right, it’s doing spam. You can spam 1 gazillion people with phishing emails so much more effectively now. Like I said, that’s not harmless.

        • Canaconda@lemmy.ca
          1·
          3 days ago

          You can spam 1 gazillion people with phishing emails so much more effectively now.

          1. Phishing is the most effect way to gain access to systems. So saying all it does is scale that up is not an argument against it’s threat whatsoever.

          2. Phishing is only one of many types of attacks that AI can automate at scale… and arguably the easiest to detect.

          3. The compounding factor is the ability to instantaneously cross analyze devices and software with a data base of known vulnerabilities. Do you know what a zero day exploit is?

          4. This is what industry experts in the field are saying. Your analogy with running only holds water if you’re an authority on the subject and not a layman operating on conjecture.

          • Emilie Easie@lemmynsfw.com
            11·
            3 days ago

            Not to be a jerk, but its = possessive, it’s = it is. If your phone is doing it, if you correct it a few times, it’ll usually fix it :D

            I think we mostly just agree then. I’m not sure if you misread what I was saying, but I have specifically said twice now that it’s not harmless, so:

            So saying all it does is scale that up is not an argument against it’s threat whatsoever.

            I haven’t made that argument.

            The compounding factor is the ability to instantaneously cross analyze devices and software with a data base of known vulnerabilities. Do you know what a zero day exploit is?

            Yeah, this isn’t nothing either. LLMs have also killed some people, which is terrible, too. These are things that are already happening, though, not getting worse.

            I just don’t think it’s going to change our economy on the scale you seem to think it will because there isn’t any evidence of that yet, and “but it could improve” isn’t a strong enough case to overcome my skepticism. I think LLMs are hitting a wall. That doesn’t mean they WON’T get much better, just that there isn’t any evidence right now that they are going to. The current thought process is just “throw more data at it!!” and we’re hitting diminishing returns and running out of data anyway.

            Your analogy with running only holds water if you’re an authority on the subject and not a layman operating on conjecture.

            I’m not sure what YOUR credentials are, but it’s weird to imply that for some reason I need to be an expert to continue this conversation, but you don’t need to be? I hate having these kinds of weird interactions over reddit, where one guy is shouting at me that he can see the future and I should believe him over drawing my own conclusions for reasons™, so I’m definitely not going to have them here. If that wasn’t your intention, sorry for the misunderstanding, but yeah, have a good day.

            • Canaconda@lemmy.ca
              1·
              3 days ago

              I just don’t think it’s going to change our economy on the scale you seem to think it will

              Yea you’ve completely misunderstood what I was saying. Like not even on the same topic anymore. I’m talking about AI being used for oppression and terrorism after the AI bubble collapses.

              I’m not sure what YOUR credentials are

              I have more certifications in cybersecurity than you that I am sure.

              some reason I need to be an expert to continue this conversation

              Thats a strawman. I never said you couldn’t continue the conversation, I pointed out that you lack the expertise to be contradicting actual experts.

              I hate having these kinds of weird interactions over reddit, where one guy is shouting at me that he can see the future and I should believe him over drawing my own conclusions for reasons™

              Sounds like the common denominator is you on that bud. If you had bothered to read the links I provided you might have realized what I was actually talking about instead of assuming you did.