Meta introduces Segment Anything Model 2(ai.meta.com)
ai.meta.com
Meta introduces Segment Anything Model 2
https://ai.meta.com/sam2/
98 comments
Google still leads in AI research. They are doing the opposite of short term. The reason why it does not seem like it may be because most of their work is either basic research or related to chemistry, physics or things that are not public like Facebook.
They are behind in productization of the research. So far they seem to do the minimal effort from the trained model to product.
They are behind in productization of the research. So far they seem to do the minimal effort from the trained model to product.
Also don't forget Waymo.
waymo is pretty far behind in terms of self driving tech
I was under the impression Waymo was the leader. Who are they behind and how?
i guess it depends on how you measure it.
1. how many miles does waymo drive compared to competition?
2. how many people use waymo versus competition?
3. how many miles of road does waymo work on?
the answer to all three is thousands of times less than Tesla's FSD, which granted is not free of disengagements and still supervised. But then you have to ask what consumers want:
1. self driving that needs intervention once every few hundred miles and works anywhere
2. self driving that works only in low volume and predictable traffic, in a small section of a single city, sometimes still gets stuck and blocks intersections, breaks as soon as the road conditions change, but is entirely hands off
i think most people want #1, and the usage stats agree with that
1. how many miles does waymo drive compared to competition?
2. how many people use waymo versus competition?
3. how many miles of road does waymo work on?
the answer to all three is thousands of times less than Tesla's FSD, which granted is not free of disengagements and still supervised. But then you have to ask what consumers want:
1. self driving that needs intervention once every few hundred miles and works anywhere
2. self driving that works only in low volume and predictable traffic, in a small section of a single city, sometimes still gets stuck and blocks intersections, breaks as soon as the road conditions change, but is entirely hands off
i think most people want #1, and the usage stats agree with that
Sure, but the major difference is that Waymo already operates a real service accessible to absolutely anyone in certain cities that actually transports passengers from point A to point B with no driver present in the car. Tesla FSD is not at that point yet.
I am not even saying this as some Tesla FSD hater, I used it a ton over the years and am generally happy with it. But claiming that, in its current state, it has a lead over Waymo is a bit questionable.
I am not even saying this as some Tesla FSD hater, I used it a ton over the years and am generally happy with it. But claiming that, in its current state, it has a lead over Waymo is a bit questionable.
waymo is using an approach that is inherently limited and not scalable. they went for short term gains at the expense of knee-capping themselves long term. it's a fundamentally less robust approach.
FSD is really, really close. The recent 12.5 software is a big step forward for them, and their rate of improvement is really, really fast these days.
i appreciate the level headed discussion
FSD is really, really close. The recent 12.5 software is a big step forward for them, and their rate of improvement is really, really fast these days.
i appreciate the level headed discussion
Fair point about recent software updates, I can definitely believe that (I moved to a place where a car is not a necessity at the beginning of this year, so I didnt get to test the recent updates myself).
However, I can still see someone claiming that Waymo might have an edge in some form as a fair take, given they indeed have something that FSD, at the moment, doesn’t (which is full operation with no driver). Whether that is a viable long-term approach compared to FSD (or whether it is hitting the ceiling that FSD doesn’t have) is a solid point though.
However, I can still see someone claiming that Waymo might have an edge in some form as a fair take, given they indeed have something that FSD, at the moment, doesn’t (which is full operation with no driver). Whether that is a viable long-term approach compared to FSD (or whether it is hitting the ceiling that FSD doesn’t have) is a solid point though.
Pretty far behind who?
What should we take away from the AI Overview snafu? Is it an example of an ill-conceived concept for an AI product? Or, is it an example of a technically inferior model hampering an otherwise good product?
Insufficient red teaming, presumably due to release pressure from higher up, and lack of work processes requiring more red teaming.
I can't even fathom being an engineer on that project and not throwing it a few curveballs to see what happens. Someone must have known.
why aren't they a research institution then? We live in a funny world where academia is ridden with paper mills and fail to do its job, and a for profit company like Google is doing academia's job and... fail to do its job on applications and commercialization also.
They kind of are. They do research and spin of the results as companies or products. Waymo, SandboxAQ, Isomorphic Labs, Aalyria, Niantic, Verily,
https://x.company/
https://x.company/
Yeah I have noticed all of the actually useful ML papers I have read come from Deep Mind and Google because they seem more interested in stuff that actually matters like industrial control systems and other boring stuff that makes money
I know nothing here, but isn't that also the difference: Meta is just trying out things, and can find that killer application later. Google meanwhile existentially feels that search must be the killer application, and tries to shoehorn everything into that. And in doing so put the bar for success so, so high, ignoring where things are really at.
Problem is that Google core product is not search, but ads. Over years they were slowly degrading search experience because making search better, faster and more efficient means we would spend less time watching ads.
Situation is the same on YouTube where Google have insane market monopoly, but still depreoritize actual creators who made their platform successful to appeal to brands and push more and more ads. Demonetization of everything ever slightly controversial. Somehow Google index whole internet 100 times a day, their OS run on majority of smartphones, their browser is monopoly, they know everything about everyone, but can't even filter spam efficiently.
I never liked or used Facebook / Instagram much, but at least Meta core products are not deteriorating at same insane pace Google products are. I can still use WhatsApp daily without ads being fed down my throat.
Situation is the same on YouTube where Google have insane market monopoly, but still depreoritize actual creators who made their platform successful to appeal to brands and push more and more ads. Demonetization of everything ever slightly controversial. Somehow Google index whole internet 100 times a day, their OS run on majority of smartphones, their browser is monopoly, they know everything about everyone, but can't even filter spam efficiently.
I never liked or used Facebook / Instagram much, but at least Meta core products are not deteriorating at same insane pace Google products are. I can still use WhatsApp daily without ads being fed down my throat.
For a long time Search was what Google needed you to use in order to collect massive amounts of personal information about you. Today they have Android, and Gmail, and youtube, and Nest, and fitbit, and Maps, and Chrome all feeding google a steady stream of data on the most intimate details of your life. Google doesn't need Search anymore to track what you're doing online or to learn about what you're doing offline, so Search gets neglected and filled with an ever increasing amount of ads and trash.
If you have a website, all the spam and AI garbage filling up Google's search results can make it very hard for people to find your website using Google. Don't worry though, because you can pay Google to fix the problem Google has made for you, in fact, you might increasingly feel like you need to pay Google to fix the problem they're causing you or people won't be able to find your website at all. You can try to tell people your domain name, but Google has trained the pubic to search from the address bar and they've mostly forgotten what a URL even is.
If you have a website, all the spam and AI garbage filling up Google's search results can make it very hard for people to find your website using Google. Don't worry though, because you can pay Google to fix the problem Google has made for you, in fact, you might increasingly feel like you need to pay Google to fix the problem they're causing you or people won't be able to find your website at all. You can try to tell people your domain name, but Google has trained the pubic to search from the address bar and they've mostly forgotten what a URL even is.
> Over years they were slowly degrading search experience because making search better, faster and more efficient means we would spend less time watching ads.
That honestly sounds like revisionism to fit your narrative. Occam's razor would decree that the degradation simply came through SEO, and it's inverse correlation of quality (SEO means essentially pushing terrible content higher for advertising revenue)
It most likely wasn't Google's aim to reduce their search quality, it was just a side effect of them becoming too successful, that it became unreasonably profitable to game the system
That honestly sounds like revisionism to fit your narrative. Occam's razor would decree that the degradation simply came through SEO, and it's inverse correlation of quality (SEO means essentially pushing terrible content higher for advertising revenue)
It most likely wasn't Google's aim to reduce their search quality, it was just a side effect of them becoming too successful, that it became unreasonably profitable to game the system
The feedback loop with Google is they got better and better at indexing everything, so more "indexable" content got created to take advantage of it. There was probably some sort of tipping point where normal human behavior and content-generation couldn't keep up with Google's increased capability, so the increase came in generated/copied/llmd/spam content which outpaced the natural growth of real content. This further pushed google to get better and better at "indexing" everything, making the issue worse.
Cherry on top for Google: Due to the sheer "volume" of content this loop ended up creating, it posed a larger moat for any new entrants into the search market thus strengthening their monopoly position.
There will be a subsequent tipping point: Where due to the sheer volume of generated/spammed/seo crap on the internet, the volume of "real" content will be so small that it'll become within reach of being indexable again by smaller players. We're already seeing this to some extent, and it'll only get better.
Cherry on top for Google: Due to the sheer "volume" of content this loop ended up creating, it posed a larger moat for any new entrants into the search market thus strengthening their monopoly position.
There will be a subsequent tipping point: Where due to the sheer volume of generated/spammed/seo crap on the internet, the volume of "real" content will be so small that it'll become within reach of being indexable again by smaller players. We're already seeing this to some extent, and it'll only get better.
> Where due to the sheer volume of generated/spammed/seo crap on the internet, the volume of "real" content will be so small that it'll become within reach of being indexable again by smaller players.
Will it be discoverable, though?
Will it be discoverable, though?
It wasn't SSO that put ads before the real search results.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40133976
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40133976
SEO didn't get rid of the yellow backgrounds on ads either. A few times during the peak of LLM fever I found that I could search an LLM-related term and get zero organic results above the fold. Every visible "result" was actually an ad disguised as a result.
Google actually have a daily history of internet available on palm of their hand as well as insane access to both user behaviour (Android, Chrome) and website statistics (Analytics, Adsense, Google DNS, etc).
They had the power to not succumb to "SEO" content spam, but this wouldn't improve their ads revenue baseline. Pushing their own services and centralised internet on other hand...
They had the power to not succumb to "SEO" content spam, but this wouldn't improve their ads revenue baseline. Pushing their own services and centralised internet on other hand...
Not sure how meta is killing it. Their AI integrations into their apps like whatsapp, instagram are beyond useless. They were stuffed in there just to fool markets into beliving meta is some sort of ai player.
> That's the difference of a founder-led company vs. market led.
Zuckerberg is the most unimaginative CEOs of the them all. Meta never had a single original product ( save for portal device). All their products are acquisitions. Meta is phenomenally bad at innovation.
Zuckerberg seems to have pulled some sort PR campaign to cleanup his image. But we all know FB is still a shady company run by a shady man, nothing has changed in its rotten core. It was fined billions of dollars just this week by Texas.
Meta is far from a "founder led company" . All the founders of the apps he buys leave immediately and are in turn run by managment consultant types like Adam Mosseri .
> Once Meta finds the killer app for VR
Sad to see that ppl are still buying into metaverse hailmary zuckerburg scammed to convince markets that meta is still an innovative company amid slowing user growth. I still don't understand how metaverse fraud pulled by zuckerberg wasn't some sort of SEC violation.
> That's the difference of a founder-led company vs. market led.
Zuckerberg is the most unimaginative CEOs of the them all. Meta never had a single original product ( save for portal device). All their products are acquisitions. Meta is phenomenally bad at innovation.
Zuckerberg seems to have pulled some sort PR campaign to cleanup his image. But we all know FB is still a shady company run by a shady man, nothing has changed in its rotten core. It was fined billions of dollars just this week by Texas.
Meta is far from a "founder led company" . All the founders of the apps he buys leave immediately and are in turn run by managment consultant types like Adam Mosseri .
> Once Meta finds the killer app for VR
Sad to see that ppl are still buying into metaverse hailmary zuckerburg scammed to convince markets that meta is still an innovative company amid slowing user growth. I still don't understand how metaverse fraud pulled by zuckerberg wasn't some sort of SEC violation.
Meta can still very much be an innovative company regardless of user growth though, right? They are very much innovating in the AI research space, and are absolutely leading in open* source research/models, even if their AI integrations are flopping.
Sure, none of this research might be obviously contributing to their products in a share market sense, but it's still innovation which is contributing to the (entirely separate to their "product") AI research community.
Sure, none of this research might be obviously contributing to their products in a share market sense, but it's still innovation which is contributing to the (entirely separate to their "product") AI research community.
> Meta can still very much be an innovative company regardless of user growth though, right?
only till market tolerates it . they will shut it down once patience runs out like they did with metaverse nonsense
only till market tolerates it . they will shut it down once patience runs out like they did with metaverse nonsense
Meta has insane distribution. Even if they don't match the best AI integration in a couple of months, they can push it to 1 billion people in days when it hits.
Same thing for AR/VR, they can afford to invest massively in different plans, use cases and form factors. Fitness, work, social, metaverse, gaming, hardware... It's a collection of bets and in this day an age, one great product-market fit can scale into billions of revenue.
In a recent interview Zuck stated that he was surprised by how well the RayBans worked. It's also a great synergy with this new wave of AIs. Because they invested so much they might well get ahead in this race
Same thing for AR/VR, they can afford to invest massively in different plans, use cases and form factors. Fitness, work, social, metaverse, gaming, hardware... It's a collection of bets and in this day an age, one great product-market fit can scale into billions of revenue.
In a recent interview Zuck stated that he was surprised by how well the RayBans worked. It's also a great synergy with this new wave of AIs. Because they invested so much they might well get ahead in this race
> That's the difference of a founder-led company vs. market led.
Are they really so different?
Facebook throws things at the wall, even expensive things without a clear path to profitability, such as Llama.
Google throws things at the wall, even expensive things without a clear path to profitability, such as waymo, google glass, google fiber, stadia, and everything on https://killedbygoogle.com
Facebook made a big companywide re-orientation to deliver a vision that flopped - the metaverse.
Google made a big companywide re-orientation to deliver a vision that flopped - google plus.
Facebook renamed themselves to Meta. Google renamed themselves to Alphabet.
Facebook has an AI research division founded by a French-American computer science professor and Turing award winner. Google has an AI research division founded by a British-Canadian computer science professor and Turing award winner.
Facebook released a widely used open source Python ML library with a camelcase name, PyTorch. Google released a widely used open source Python ML library with a camelcase name, TensorFlow.
Perhaps they're following the same playbook, it's just luck that Facebook's gambles paid off recently.
Are they really so different?
Facebook throws things at the wall, even expensive things without a clear path to profitability, such as Llama.
Google throws things at the wall, even expensive things without a clear path to profitability, such as waymo, google glass, google fiber, stadia, and everything on https://killedbygoogle.com
Facebook made a big companywide re-orientation to deliver a vision that flopped - the metaverse.
Google made a big companywide re-orientation to deliver a vision that flopped - google plus.
Facebook renamed themselves to Meta. Google renamed themselves to Alphabet.
Facebook has an AI research division founded by a French-American computer science professor and Turing award winner. Google has an AI research division founded by a British-Canadian computer science professor and Turing award winner.
Facebook released a widely used open source Python ML library with a camelcase name, PyTorch. Google released a widely used open source Python ML library with a camelcase name, TensorFlow.
Perhaps they're following the same playbook, it's just luck that Facebook's gambles paid off recently.
Well, Meta is not as arbitrary with closing projects. Google closes things which are getting traction, that's a really disturbing aspect of interna politics and incentives
Also you mixed up tensorflow and pytorch.
Also you mixed up tensorflow and pytorch.
afaik tensorflow is by google brain team and pytorch is by FAIR (Facebook AI Research)
* That's the difference of a founder-led company vs. market led. Google is mostly concerned on short-term goals so they don't report a single bad quarter or has too high CAPEX on a project without profit on its sight (like VR).*
It really depends on the founder. Some are very unhappy to see the stock price drop even if they don’t really need the money this second.
Also, it’s a mixed bag. I personally think Zuck is wrong on VR but right on AI.
It really depends on the founder. Some are very unhappy to see the stock price drop even if they don’t really need the money this second.
Also, it’s a mixed bag. I personally think Zuck is wrong on VR but right on AI.
> Once Meta finds the killer app for VR
The killer app for VR is porn.
The killer app for VR is porn.
If Meta doesn't care for money, then I really don't understand what Facebook has devolved into. It used to be a chronological feed of what your friends are doing. Now all I see is an infinite steam of anger-bait, thirst traps and ai-generated spam. How can it still be controlled by the same guy?
>Now all I see is an infinite steam of anger-bait, thirst traps and ai-generated spam. How can it still be controlled by the same guy?
The stream isn't controlled by Zuck, it's controlled by AI, an AI trained to "give the people whatever they want" to maximise engagement. The more deep learning you put into a product, the harder it is to directly control the output.
The stream isn't controlled by Zuck, it's controlled by AI, an AI trained to "give the people whatever they want" to maximise engagement. The more deep learning you put into a product, the harder it is to directly control the output.
I find people's faith in the AI disturbing. I'm a Canadian who's never set foot in the U.S. or a striper bar, but for a long while it was intent on showing me ads for bikini bars in Florida or Hooters. Even if you assumed I loved titty bars, I'm not even in the right country!
Plus, it showed me what I want so much I completely left the platform.
Plus, it showed me what I want so much I completely left the platform.
> The stream isn't controlled by Zuck, it's controlled by AI
The laziest possible excuse, one rung below "just following orders" even: the "it wasn't me, it was the machine I built" defence.
The laziest possible excuse, one rung below "just following orders" even: the "it wasn't me, it was the machine I built" defence.
Please do not use the term "AI" as a way to deflect responsibility. People use AI. The people who use it are responsible for its use.
They can easily control the output. You just need a filter.
They don't care about the output
They don't care about the output
They care a great deal about the output, but their priorities and goals are very different from that of their users.
The same holds true for Google. It's not that Facebook could design and build social networking sites that aren't terrible for the health or their users and society, or that Google could build a better search engine/search engine UI. They absolutely can, but that's less profitable.
The same holds true for Google. It's not that Facebook could design and build social networking sites that aren't terrible for the health or their users and society, or that Google could build a better search engine/search engine UI. They absolutely can, but that's less profitable.
If Google can't solve the SEO problem what makes you think Facebook "just needs a filter"?
Im answering inside a context. Telling me that Facebook can't control its output because of AI / complexity, than thats just wrong.
Why doesn't Google have higher quality results? It's about just controlling the output too.
No its a different thing or argument.
If facebook can't 'control' the output because of AI or whatever as an argument, thats facebook specific.
Can google control its output? Yes for censoring etc. but Google shows you external self indexed and self analyzed content, Facebook doesn't do that. It has logged in users using their tools to create content and Facebook uses their internal algo to show whatever they want to you.
If facebook can't 'control' the output because of AI or whatever as an argument, thats facebook specific.
Can google control its output? Yes for censoring etc. but Google shows you external self indexed and self analyzed content, Facebook doesn't do that. It has logged in users using their tools to create content and Facebook uses their internal algo to show whatever they want to you.
Google is notorious for in creating and sunsetting projects who's only purpose is yo showcase talent without regard for any other business model outside of their primary money makers. No support, no open sourcing, just something to show off and show that they are in the innovative app space.
I don’t think this is true at all. Alphabet has Waymo and Isomorphic Labs, trying to commercialise solutions to problems with very, high impact. Time scale is at least a decade
That's a lot extrapolation from a few open models.
> Once Meta finds the killer app for VR
I like that it's taken as a premise that billionaires do have some kind of superhuman vision, that it's not even a matter of "if" but "when" Zuck's VR gamble pays off.
I like that it's taken as a premise that billionaires do have some kind of superhuman vision, that it's not even a matter of "if" but "when" Zuck's VR gamble pays off.
they are both, they have a different focus though. E.g. AlphaProof and AlphaGeometry 2 are "killing it" also in their fields.
But for consumers Meta seems to have a lead indeed...
But for consumers Meta seems to have a lead indeed...
Google Gemini recently enabled 32k context in their free tier.
Yet they still locking access to reading files from Google Drive to some "advanced" plan or might be it's not implemented at all. Just 6 months ago or something ago "Bard" could do it and it was one of few actually useful features to summarise PDFs.
I really dont want to have any dependencies in my workflow on Google products and features because they'll surely break them.
I really dont want to have any dependencies in my workflow on Google products and features because they'll surely break them.
Hmm, I just tried it and it works fine. I had to enable workspace access under https://gemini.google.com/extensions
It's enabled for me. It can now even access list of files on Google Drive and print them. Yet every time I trying to make it read PDF it's just doesn't work:
> Sorry, I can't access your Google Drive files. You'll need to upload the file or describe the content of the pages to me.
Any example of prompt you using that is working for you?
> Sorry, I can't access your Google Drive files. You'll need to upload the file or describe the content of the pages to me.
Any example of prompt you using that is working for you?
Yes, I had to prefix it with @Google Drive. E.g. "@Google Drive Hi, Can you extract the table at page 3 of the ti lm317 datasheet?"
Wow. Okay actually it does seems to work now.
When they initially moved from Bard to Gemini nothing worked for sure, but with your trick it does work.
Also find out right now that it can actually work if you ask to look for a file on Google Drive and within the same command ask to do something to specific file.
Thank you.
When they initially moved from Bard to Gemini nothing worked for sure, but with your trick it does work.
Also find out right now that it can actually work if you ask to look for a file on Google Drive and within the same command ask to do something to specific file.
Thank you.
I still find Gemma 2 9b to be better than Llama 3.1 8b often
Yeah, Google Deepmind is doing useless stuff like protein folding and math.
While Meta excels at chatbot of the day
While Meta excels at chatbot of the day
Totally agree with you
Facebook has nothing besides their social network. They care very little about a lot of stuff (after all they didn't care about fakenews and other things).
The metaverse was a huge waste of money.
Their AI Character thing is weird.
They cater to a lot of small businesses, thats definitly helping them.
But besides that? They have very little to do what Google, Microsoft, Apple and co are actually doing.
The metaverse was a huge waste of money.
Their AI Character thing is weird.
They cater to a lot of small businesses, thats definitly helping them.
But besides that? They have very little to do what Google, Microsoft, Apple and co are actually doing.
No love for Firefox.
Discussion (720 points, 1 day ago, 130 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41104523
Surprising how quickly big news disappear from the front page. Hacker News seems to be optimized for people who check the website multiple times per day.
I'm also periodically surprised that topics that seem to be of core interest and very popular on HN just drop off the front page in a matter of hours. Meanwhile discussions like this one [0] (which stayed on the front page with not even 20 upvotes and 4-5 comments for almost 20h before some discussion picked up) seem to artificially stay on the front page for a day or more.
It's probably less algorithmic and more arbitrary.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41067079
It's probably less algorithmic and more arbitrary.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41067079
the algorithm that fudges the order of the front page can be so annoying sometimes, i accidentally refresh the page, and a link that was top 10 on the front page a few minutes ago is now buried in page 3 suddenly
That's not the reason I use https://hckrnews.com/ , but it's another good reason.
Gotta to do something between CI/CD deployments. :)
Try something like https://news.ycombinator.com/?over=100. It decays less quickly (at the expense of lesser scoring, recent posts).
Looking at that list HN has really shifted from a tech entrepreneur website to a programmer, especially linux, centric site.
That is nothing like the list I would have seen 15 years ago when I first joined in 2009. Then again I don't miss the "101 ways to not need sleep and work all night on your startup" posts.
Really seems to have shifted away from anything entrepreneurship or running your own business, the mantle it took over from Joel's "Business of Software" forum. Wonder where that discussion's all gone.
Plus I just got a reminder how rubbish Google is right now and how vulnerable they are to having their lunch eaten. I couldn't remember what Joel Spolsky's foum was called, and it kept returning absolute crap for various search terms that would have instantly worked 5 years ago.
God, I sound like a grumpy old man, but the internet has turned shite. Or at least how I consume it has.
That is nothing like the list I would have seen 15 years ago when I first joined in 2009. Then again I don't miss the "101 ways to not need sleep and work all night on your startup" posts.
Really seems to have shifted away from anything entrepreneurship or running your own business, the mantle it took over from Joel's "Business of Software" forum. Wonder where that discussion's all gone.
Plus I just got a reminder how rubbish Google is right now and how vulnerable they are to having their lunch eaten. I couldn't remember what Joel Spolsky's foum was called, and it kept returning absolute crap for various search terms that would have instantly worked 5 years ago.
God, I sound like a grumpy old man, but the internet has turned shite. Or at least how I consume it has.
I built an email notifier for alerting me when there is a popular news article which I defined by X number of comments. I think forums like hacker news are a really cool indicator for an emerging technology, an opportunity, or some exciting tech story. I get a tonne of false positives though, mostly articles that are inflammatory get sent to me. However, crowd strike triggered it as did the release of chat gpt so there are some hits
It probably has more to do with employees working at the company downvoting the thread.
it says that the released the code, but I couldn't find any except some example code, Did they release the training code ?
I think that repository is what they are talking when they say "releasing a pretrained Segment Anything 2 model, [...] and code": https://github.com/facebookresearch/segment-anything-2
Now we just need sam2.cpp ;)
If someone would tell me just a decade ago that Facebook will become one of the most open innovating companies and Mark Zuckerberg one of sane billionares I would really laugh in their face. But now...
Regardless of how actually successful their attempts at VR and AI end up they already going to have some place in history for that.
Regardless of how actually successful their attempts at VR and AI end up they already going to have some place in history for that.
Grading on a curve...
To be fair, they have a very long history of open-sourcing internal software, and it becoming industry standards, this is not at all new, as some have been saying.
Especially so in database technology: rocksdb, zstd compression, presto, Cassandra, Hive, Velox (this one’s new) are all Meta’s doing.
And those are just the popular ones, there’s way more (database-related) projects they open sourced that didn’t get too popular!
So all in all, as much as I’m happy to complain about them as a company, they’ve always been huge contributors to the open-source ecosystem.
Especially so in database technology: rocksdb, zstd compression, presto, Cassandra, Hive, Velox (this one’s new) are all Meta’s doing.
And those are just the popular ones, there’s way more (database-related) projects they open sourced that didn’t get too popular!
So all in all, as much as I’m happy to complain about them as a company, they’ve always been huge contributors to the open-source ecosystem.
Also in web development technologies: React, React Native, Jest, GraphQL, & Docusaurus
While this is true they wasn't so different before compared to Google and even Microsoft in later years. Other companies also released a lot of open source software.
AI research is different though. Everyone else decided against open source and started to dig their own moats justifying it with different kind of BS.
Yet Facebook / Meta has decided to be on side of open innovations.
AI research is different though. Everyone else decided against open source and started to dig their own moats justifying it with different kind of BS.
Yet Facebook / Meta has decided to be on side of open innovations.
I love my Oculus but VR has yet to achieve the cultural ubiquity (mb off topic).
I first had a headset back in 2017 for the fun factor of playing around with the hot new thing. It has to be tethered to a powerful gaming PC, was heavy, and the resolution / FOV was relatively poor, and of course no passthrough.
I got a quest 3 about months ago and it's a world of difference from where the form factor was at in the past. It's to the point now where it's actually better for certain use cases than other alternatives and hence sees some daily use from me.
If the trend continues to get better and hardware that's smaller, lighter, more comfortable, and generally more useful, then I do see it hitting mass adoption at some point.
I think the demo Zuck did with Lex on his podcast where they did the podcast in VR using their avatars was pretty neat and the point where that is commercially available and as easy to use as a smartphone, it's a no brainer that it'll sell well.
I got a quest 3 about months ago and it's a world of difference from where the form factor was at in the past. It's to the point now where it's actually better for certain use cases than other alternatives and hence sees some daily use from me.
If the trend continues to get better and hardware that's smaller, lighter, more comfortable, and generally more useful, then I do see it hitting mass adoption at some point.
I think the demo Zuck did with Lex on his podcast where they did the podcast in VR using their avatars was pretty neat and the point where that is commercially available and as easy to use as a smartphone, it's a no brainer that it'll sell well.
I totally understand that VR is loss leader for Meta and a lot of Metaverse stuff they do is cringey, but at least they do have some vision. They actually build some new tech and trying to make it work for mass market.
What Google trying to do other than maintain their ad revenue? IDK.
What Google trying to do other than maintain their ad revenue? IDK.
Thanks the thousands of African workers doing the boring repetitive dataset work.
the real heroes
So you can track "objects" like people in a shopping mall and they are releasing it as a commoditized complement.
What are possible scenarios?
1) Advertisers build tracking systems in supermarkets and malls and Facebook sells them the profiles of the victims.
2) Facebook is getting people hooked on the "free" models but will later release a better and fully closed model with tracking software so advertisers have to purchase both profiles and the software.
3) Facebook releases the model in order to create goodwill among (a subset of) the developer population and normalize tracking. The subset of developers will also act as useful idiots in the EU and promote tracking and corporate power.
What are possible scenarios?
1) Advertisers build tracking systems in supermarkets and malls and Facebook sells them the profiles of the victims.
2) Facebook is getting people hooked on the "free" models but will later release a better and fully closed model with tracking software so advertisers have to purchase both profiles and the software.
3) Facebook releases the model in order to create goodwill among (a subset of) the developer population and normalize tracking. The subset of developers will also act as useful idiots in the EU and promote tracking and corporate power.
Tracking objects is a different task from segmentation, whatever you are describing doesn't need what Facebook released today. In AI a lot of things are overlapping and some stuff that they have been releasing has no direct use for them.
Segmentation is helpful in creative applications, think of video editors that can segment the objects in the video and replace the background etc. Green screen type of thing.
Segmentation is helpful in creative applications, think of video editors that can segment the objects in the video and replace the background etc. Green screen type of thing.
It's a closely related task. This seems capable of at least some tracking.
Wouldn't it be easier to achieve these nefarious goals if it's was a closed model that only few actors know about and have access to? Do you think such models not yet exist or deployed?
If you want to look for something behind what Facebook doing now then it's pretty clear they damaging a moat of their competitors like Google and Microsoft (AI.com).
Meta competitors dump shitloads of money on GPUs and running their cloud AIs. When Meta releasing open models in wild where everyone and their cat can run them it's only make this arm race more expensive for proprietary AI offerings.
If you want to look for something behind what Facebook doing now then it's pretty clear they damaging a moat of their competitors like Google and Microsoft (AI.com).
Meta competitors dump shitloads of money on GPUs and running their cloud AIs. When Meta releasing open models in wild where everyone and their cat can run them it's only make this arm race more expensive for proprietary AI offerings.
It's (still) for the metaverse even when people say it has flopped, this is directly for that aim.
Tracking of everything via live camera vision
Tracking of everything via live camera vision
I always think of the holographic orbit mapping UI from The Expanse when I see something like this. It's the paper of the future that will be hooked into everything we think about. Such a powerful tool for exploring the world.
Impressive results! Here's a test video from inside Mercer Labs: https://youtu.be/W7kM0ISXkpQ?feature=shared
What am I looking at, and how is it related to SAM2?
I would have killed for this back in my editing and motion graphics days.
The Roto Brush in After Effects is similar, but its quality has always been lacking and it takes forever to process.
The Roto Brush in After Effects is similar, but its quality has always been lacking and it takes forever to process.
Roto Brush in After Effects is a lifesavers but with limitations. SAM is definitely a game-changer!
[deleted]
I'm sure this, LLAMA and the other projects that they have will help drive up new creations, companies and progress.
I'm also sure that this kind of openly sharing code and research will drive up business value for them. It may be hard to say right now what it is, but I'm sure it will.
That's the difference of a founder-led company vs. market led. Google is mostly concerned on short-term goals so they don't report a single bad quarter or has too high CAPEX on a project without profit on its sight (like VR).
Once Meta finds the killer app for VR, all the other companies will be so many years behind that they will need to buy software from Meta or not take any market share in this new space. Similar to what happened about AI chips and Nvidia. Nobody was investing enough on it.