The general theme of meta's approach across the board here is interesting - basically, they are trying to win in part by taking risks others aren't willing to. I can imagine they saw that all the success is coming so far when a someone is willing to cross a boundary that wasn't previously thought acceptable - from releasing ChatGPT in the first place, to things like OpenClaw.
So now they are actively distributing SDKs and to let people "hack" custom hardware integrations to their already risky AI agents unleashed on the general public. Giving agents abilty to control things in the physical world - what could possibly go wrong?
But here we are: so far the story is pretty much 100% "fortune favors the bold", and Meta is leaning into it.
Meta has never created anything successful since getting lucky with Facebook. Instagram and WhatsApp were acquisitions. Facebook Phone, the Libra shitcoin, and Metaverse VR were all flops. Jury's still out on the much-maligned "pervert glasses", but maybe those will sell.
Now they're trying a new thing. I don't know if it's so much "being bold" as flailing around for some new thing. They really desperately want to own a "platform" like Microsoft, Apple, or Google.
I don't totally disagree but I think you understate the level of competence needed to integrate and make successful the acquisitions. And they navigated the valley of death from desktop to mobile. And Threads is an interesting example everyone ignores that is 100% in-house and has actually established a strong user base. At very least, Meta has avoided the fate of so many others that came before - Yahoo, MySpace, etc and in part that is because Zuck made big bets at the right time that many people thought were insane (buying WhatsApp, Instagram etc).
> I don't totally disagree but I think you understate the level of competence needed to integrate and make successful the acquisitions.
Those take a huge level of competence and skill; I don't think the argument is "Meta can't do anything", but I also don't think it addresses "Meta can't invent anything new".
The glasses are great! Considering they have a light that shows when you're recording and it is NOT easy to disable, I definitely don't think they are 'pervert' glasses or spy glasses.
There are certain recordings where glasses make the perfect form factor.
It is weird, a year and a half ago I wrote a blog post (<a href="https://meanderingthoughts.hashnode.dev/lets-do-some-actual-innovative-sht" rel="nofollow">https://meanderingthoughts.hashnode.dev/lets-do-some-actual-...) basically describing a lot of what Muse does, except all hosted locally. I included a section about using hardware around the house to enhance AI agents.
When the initial Muse launch happened, my first reaction was "wow this sounds familiar."
Now the HW side of things is announced.
To be fair, this is all obvious stuff that should be done. The key is who can pull it off. It has been pointed out many types that technically Muse is nothing new, some combination of Gemini products can already do it. The counterpoint being that packaging and branding make a product.
I am kind of sad that desktop computer use ended up being the way to go instead of hooking into mobile phones. Mobile phones allow for a lot more potential integrations with day to day life, plenty of services now days are (sadly) only available through a mobile app.
> But here we are: so far the story is pretty much 100% "fortune favors the bold", and Meta is leaning into it.
Been thinking about this lately when I saw some mathematicians talking about more AI regulation after the millennial prize thing.
Move fast break things, fortune favors the bold, breaking rules doesn't matter if you win, etc silicon valley ideologies to me seem to be domination ideologies. Uber may toy with playing nice with taxi law until it's too annoying, then they shift to getting as many people as possible to have their commute, convenience, or livelihood to depend on it, then they can turn around to regulators with their finger on their chin and say "oopsies, I guess everyone needs us now, better consider that in your regulatory efforts!"
It's the brunch equivalent of changing the restaurant the night before to one you prefer by DMing everyone in the group chat with "we decided to change to antipodean because dave had a breakup with one of the waiters at french twist," and then when everyone arrives and Dave says "I've never dated a waiter in my life," you say "well we're all already here so..."
Anyway, it seems pointless to try to regulate this culture out of these kinds of companies or really this entire scene. Any law is now just an obstacle, and besides, various government actors seem to be angling for industry retirement positions, so passing useful regulation seems basically impossible.
Imo two can play at this game. When law fails to serve the interests of the people or is even weaponized by the interests of Capital against us, what's the point of it? I'm interested in things like LLM distillation and open weight models that take the winds of profit out of the sails of these "disruptors" to make their activities have no payoff. Wonder what other things we can do that would make someone ask "why would I send all my data to Facebook when I could instead just..." Pirating, free culture, leaks, hell outright theft, if we're going to disrupt things, why not DISRUPT things?
zmmmmm · · focus · HN ↗
So now they are actively distributing SDKs and to let people "hack" custom hardware integrations to their already risky AI agents unleashed on the general public. Giving agents abilty to control things in the physical world - what could possibly go wrong?
But here we are: so far the story is pretty much 100% "fortune favors the bold", and Meta is leaning into it.
ForHackernews · · focus · HN ↗
Now they're trying a new thing. I don't know if it's so much "being bold" as flailing around for some new thing. They really desperately want to own a "platform" like Microsoft, Apple, or Google.
mococa · · focus · HN ↗
zmmmmm · · focus · HN ↗
throwaway314155 · · focus · HN ↗
petesergeant · · focus · HN ↗
Those take a huge level of competence and skill; I don't think the argument is "Meta can't do anything", but I also don't think it addresses "Meta can't invent anything new".
BenzeneDream · · focus · HN ↗
There are certain recordings where glasses make the perfect form factor.
com2kid · · focus · HN ↗
When the initial Muse launch happened, my first reaction was "wow this sounds familiar."
Now the HW side of things is announced.
To be fair, this is all obvious stuff that should be done. The key is who can pull it off. It has been pointed out many types that technically Muse is nothing new, some combination of Gemini products can already do it. The counterpoint being that packaging and branding make a product.
I am kind of sad that desktop computer use ended up being the way to go instead of hooking into mobile phones. Mobile phones allow for a lot more potential integrations with day to day life, plenty of services now days are (sadly) only available through a mobile app.
NetOpWibby · · focus · HN ↗
Modularity, connection, and true ownership.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
komali2 · · focus · HN ↗
Been thinking about this lately when I saw some mathematicians talking about more AI regulation after the millennial prize thing.
Move fast break things, fortune favors the bold, breaking rules doesn't matter if you win, etc silicon valley ideologies to me seem to be domination ideologies. Uber may toy with playing nice with taxi law until it's too annoying, then they shift to getting as many people as possible to have their commute, convenience, or livelihood to depend on it, then they can turn around to regulators with their finger on their chin and say "oopsies, I guess everyone needs us now, better consider that in your regulatory efforts!"
It's the brunch equivalent of changing the restaurant the night before to one you prefer by DMing everyone in the group chat with "we decided to change to antipodean because dave had a breakup with one of the waiters at french twist," and then when everyone arrives and Dave says "I've never dated a waiter in my life," you say "well we're all already here so..."
Anyway, it seems pointless to try to regulate this culture out of these kinds of companies or really this entire scene. Any law is now just an obstacle, and besides, various government actors seem to be angling for industry retirement positions, so passing useful regulation seems basically impossible.
Imo two can play at this game. When law fails to serve the interests of the people or is even weaponized by the interests of Capital against us, what's the point of it? I'm interested in things like LLM distillation and open weight models that take the winds of profit out of the sails of these "disruptors" to make their activities have no payoff. Wonder what other things we can do that would make someone ask "why would I send all my data to Facebook when I could instead just..." Pirating, free culture, leaks, hell outright theft, if we're going to disrupt things, why not DISRUPT things?