[HN Gopher] Everyone Mark Zuckerberg Has Hired So Far for Meta's...
___________________________________________________________________
Everyone Mark Zuckerberg Has Hired So Far for Meta's
'Superintelligence' Team
Author : mji
Score : 34 points
Date : 2025-06-30 19:13 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
| JLvL wrote:
| * Trapit Bansal: pioneered RL on chain of thought and co-creator
| of o-series models at OpenAl.
|
| * Shuchao Bi: co-creator of GPT-4o voice mode and o4-mini.
| Previously led multimodal post-training at OpenAl.
|
| * Huiwen Chang: co-creator of GPT-4o's image generation, and
| previously invented MaskIT and Muse text-to-image architectures
| at Google Research.
|
| * Ji Lin: helped build o3/o4-mini, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-4.5,
| 4o-imagegen, and Operator reasoning stack.
|
| * Joel Pobar: inference at Anthropic. Previously at Meta for 11
| years on HHVM, Hack, Flow, Redex, performance tooling, and
| machine learning.
|
| * Jack Rae: pre-training tech lead for Gemini and reasoning for
| Gemini 2.5. Led Gopher and Chinchilla early LLM efforts at
| DeepMind.
|
| * Hongyu Ren: co-creator of GPT-4o, 4o-mini, o1-mini, o3-mini, o3
| and o4-mini. Previously leading a group for post-training at
| OpenAl.
|
| * Johan Schalkwyk: former Google Fellow, early contributor to
| Sesame, and technical lead for Maya.
|
| * Pei Sun: post-training, coding, and reasoning for Gemini at
| Google Deepmind. Previously created the last two generations of
| Waymo's perception models.
|
| * Jiahui Yu: co-creator of o3, o4-mini, GPT-4.1 and GPT-4o.
| Previously led the perception team at OpenAl, and co-led
| multimodal at Gemini.
|
| * Shengjia Zhao: co-creator of ChatGPT, GPT-4, all mini models,
| 4.1 and o3. Previously led synthetic data at OpenAl.
| smeeger wrote:
| how could these people actively try to open pandoras box and
| make all humans obsolete? if we survive this i imagine there
| will be something like the Nuremberg trials for these people
| who traded in everyones safety and wellbeing for money. and i
| hope the results will be the same.
| weird_trousers wrote:
| So much wasted money it makes me sick...
|
| There are so much money needed to solve another problems,
| especially for health.
|
| I don't blame the new comers, but Zuckerberg.
| dekhn wrote:
| zuck funds health research (a lot, and very ML focused) already
| xvector wrote:
| Wild how HN is flagging this objectively correct comment into
| the ground because "zuck bad!!1"
| dekhn wrote:
| I really do wish there was a way to downvote "because I
| don't like what the person is saying, even if it's true"
| linotype wrote:
| Better on ML than the next VR vaporware.
| twoodfin wrote:
| This stuff is ridiculously important for healthcare: It's a
| demographic fact that both the US and the world at large are
| simply not training enough doctors and nurses to provide
| today's standard of care at current staffing levels as the
| population ages.
|
| We need massive productivity boosts in medicine just as fast as
| we can get them.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I sincerely doubt this understaffing of medical professionals
| is a technology problem, and I believe it much more likely to
| be an economic structural problem. And overall, I think that
| powerful generative AI will make these economic structural
| problems much worse.
| trainerxr50 wrote:
| It doesn't take super intelligence to give my elderly father
| a bath or wipe his ass.
|
| I think the main problem is we would almost need an economic
| depression so that at the margin there were for less
| alternative jobs available than giving my father a bath.
|
| Then also consider that say we do have super-intelligence
| that adds a few years to his life because of better
| diagnostics and treatment of death. It actually makes the day
| to day care problem worse in the aggregate.
|
| We are headed towards this boomer long term care disaster and
| there is nothing that is going to avert it. Boomers I talk to
| are completely in denial of this problem too. They are
| expecting the long term care situation to look like what
| their parents had. I just try to convince every boomer I know
| that they have to do everything they can do physically now to
| better themselves to stay out of long term care as long as
| possible.
| cheevly wrote:
| Do you realize how much health-related research Zuckerburg's
| foundation does? There was literally a post on here last week
| about it, geez.
| xvector wrote:
| Superintelligence or even just AGI short circuits all our
| problems.
| goatlover wrote:
| Will the Superintelligence finally make the Metaverse profitable
| and popular?
| jxjnskkzxxhx wrote:
| Is mark Zuckerberg systematically behind the curve on every hype?
| pyman wrote:
| He's just trying to figure out how to monetise your WhatsApp
| messages
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| In the "metaverse"
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Is mark Zuckerberg systematically behind the curve on every
| hype?_
|
| Trend following with chutzpah, particulalry through
| acquisitions, has been a winning strategy for Zuckerberg and
| his shareholders.
| bamboozled wrote:
| This in includes fashion and hairstyles it seems...
| pyman wrote:
| Mark Zuckerberg hiring top AI researchers worries me more than
| Iran hiring nuclear scientists.
| quantified wrote:
| With luck, they'll vaporize billions of dollars on nothing of
| consequence.
|
| If they come up with anything of consequence, we'll have an
| incredibly higher level of Facebook monitoring of our lives in
| all scopes. Also such a level of AI crap (info/disinfo in
| politics, crime, arts, etc.) that ironically in-person
| exchanges will be valued more highly than today. When
| everything you see on pixels is suspect, only the tangible can
| be trusted.
| smeeger wrote:
| do you remember the chorus of people on HN two years ago who
| said that the next AI winter was already upon us?
| smeeger wrote:
| better than sam altman having them
| hooloovoo_zoo wrote:
| Poor Sam Altman, 300B worth of trade secrets bought out from
| under him for a paltry few hundred million.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Poor Sam Altman, 300B worth of trade secrets bought out from
| under him for a paltry few hundred million_
|
| Sorry, you don't lose people when you treat them well. Add to
| that Altman's penchant for organisational dysfunction and the
| (in part resulting) illiquidity of OpenAI's employees' equity-
| not-equity and this makes a lot of sense. Broadly, it's good
| for the American AI ecosystem for this competition for talent
| to exist.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| In retrospect, I wonder if the original ethos of the non-
| profit structure of OpenAI was a scam from the get go, or
| just woefully naive. And to emphasize, I'm not talking just
| about Altman.
|
| That is, when you create this cutting edge, powerful tech, it
| turns out that people are willing to pay gobs of money for
| it. So if somehow OpenAI had managed to stay as a non-profit
| (let's pretend training didn't cost a bajillion dollars),
| they still would have lost all of their top engineers to
| deeper pockets if they didn't pursue an aggressive
| monetization strategy.
|
| That's why I want to gag a little when I hear all this
| flowery language about how AI will cure all these diseases
| and be a huge boon to humanity. Let's get real - people are
| so hyped about this because they believe it will make them
| rich. And it most likely will, and to be clear, I don't blame
| them. The only thing I blame folks for is trying to wrap "I'd
| like to get rich" goals in moralistic BS.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _wonder if the original ethos of the non-profit structure
| of OpenAI was a scam from the get go, or just woefully
| naive_
|
| Based on behaviour, it appears they didn't think they'd do
| anything impactful. When OpenAI accidentally created
| something important Altman immediately (a) actually got
| involved to (b) reverse course.
|
| > _if somehow OpenAI had managed to stay as a non-profit
| (let 's pretend training didn't cost a bajillion dollars),
| they still would have lost all of their top engineers to
| deeper pockets if they didn't pursue an aggressive
| monetization strategy_
|
| I'm not so sure. OpenAI would have held a unique position
| as both first mover and moral arbiter. That's a powerful
| place to be, albeit not a position Silicon Valley is
| comfortable or competent in.
|
| I'm also not sure pursuing monetisation requires a for-
| profit structure. That's more a function of the cost of
| training, though again, a licensing partnership with, I
| don't know, Microsoft, would alleviate that pressure
| without requiring giving up control.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Getting rich going good is better than just getting rich.
| People like both.
|
| Which part are you skeptical about? that people also like
| to do good, or that AI can do good?
| meepmorp wrote:
| It wasn't exactly a scam, it's just nobody thought it'd be
| worth real money that fast, so the transition from noble
| venture to cash grab happened faster than expected.
| smeeger wrote:
| the idea of mark zuckerberg being at the helm of digital super-
| intelligence sickens me.
| ajkjk wrote:
| the cringiest _possible_ future
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-30 23:01 UTC)