Birbla

Discussion summary

Mark Zuckerberg stated that AI agent development is progressing slower than expected, amid mixed opinions on the pace and leadership. Some commenters criticize his expectations and leadership, while others discuss the technical aspects of AI progress.

What the discussion says

  • Some believe AI development is faster than Zuckerberg claims.
  • Critics say Zuckerberg's leadership and vision are poor.
  • There is debate over what constitutes 'enough' progress in AI.
“Zuckerberg says AI agent development is slower than expected.”
— user
“He has some unrealistic expectations; the man is a lunatic.”
— liuchao-001

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • There's a disconnect between measured productivity and "anecdotal" productivity. I love this chart because it also demonstrates one of the most effective ways to increase productivity: simply reducing the workforce.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB

    by mattas
  • The failure that is llama4 needs to be studied. Meta was kicking ass with llama3.x and then something happened, something really went wrong. what happened between that time and llama4? I think it happened after llama3.1, llama3.2 was nothing to write home about. We need the gossips, maybe a book
    by segmondy
  • I think what everyone underestimated was the absolute bonkers amount of compute it will take and how that compute must scale in order to keep up with larger and larger models.
    by _fat_santa
  • Having agents is like going from walking to having a bicycle.

    Business executives look at this and think "at this rate of progress we'll have self-driving cars in a few years!" and start making serious plans for that world.

    In reality I think we're going to be riding bikes for a long time. That situation of increased individual contributor productivity makes engineers more valuable, and increases the utility of engineers rather than making them a burden on your budget.

    Thus, cutting headcount right as they had huge potential to become vastly more productive was a stupid move. It's an admission that you don't know how to manage people effectively, which is embarrassing when you're paid mountains of money for your management skills.

    by mullingitover
  • > he expects that the social media giant will begin to experience more significant benefits from its AI investments within the next three to six months.

    He is hallucinating just like AI, and unable to come to terms with the facts on the ground. Meta has lost plot about 5 years back - with metaverse, VR, glasses and AI. They should sit back and think with a calm head, about what exactly their core product is. Unfortunately there is none, except a few acquired ones: whatsapp and instagram.

    by zkmon
  • The gap between "useful chatbot" and "useful agent" is way bigger than people realize. A chatbot can be wrong 10% of the time and still help you. An agent that's wrong 10% of the time is sending bad emails and making wrong API calls with no one checking.
    by vishalkundar
  • This is a thinner TechCrunch rewrite of this Reuters story: https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/exclusive-z...

    The exact quote appears to be:

    > In retrospect, he said, the "trajectory of the agentic development over at least the last four months hasn't really accelerated in the way that we expected," and that the company's bets on the new structure "haven't come to fruition yet." Zuckerberg was referring to AI agents, automated systems that can execute tasks on behalf of a user.

    Hard to guess exactly what he means by "trajectory of the agentic development" but my best guess is that he means that Meta's own internal efforts to improve the agent (aka longer form tool-using) capabilities of their own in-house models hasn't improved to the point that they can drive an agent harness like Codex or Claude Code in a comparable manner to the best OpenAI and Anthropic models.

    At a further guess, that was part of their goal in reassigning large numbers of employees to help label data for their AI efforts.

    by simonw
  • I was worried this time last year that by this time this year, companies would have slashed their engineering teams down to a handful and everything would be driven by mostly autonomous agents with human guidance. But it just hasn't happened. Do I write all my code with an agent now? Yes. Can you just give an agent a desired outcome and let it work, unsupervised? Absolutely not. I can produce more code than I used to, but if I want it to be good, to be stable, to do what the product manager and designers want, it's only about 2 to 3 times more code than before. And that productivity is impacted by the fact that I'm reviewing 2 to 3 times more code than before (and you have to review, even more so now than before, because if you just let opus or gpt 5 do its thing, you'll get some terrible results, and I've found a lot of engineers on my team are just letting it do it's thing without a lot of iteration).
    by efficax

Explore Birbla archives