> As of mid-August, Meta had successfully hired more than 20 researchers and engineers from OpenAI for the effort, at least 13 from Google, three from Apple, three from xAI and two from Anthropic for a total of 50-plus new employees.
What makes you think the secrets are small enough to fit inside people's heads, and aren't like a huge codebase of data scraping and filtering pipelines, or a DB of manual labels?
This is a Bighead on the roof scenario. They aren't paying $250m to actually have $250m worth of work produced. They're paying it so that their competition doesn't have it.
If they are worth $250M to not work imagine how much they’d be worth if they said “screw that I’ll spin out my own company and license myself out.” I guess being paid a quarter billion to not work is hard to argue against though.
That implies that the dude can generate $250M+ of value in a couple years. No need to put him on the roof, make him work. But, my point is - doesn't it seem reasonable that if you hire 5 people who take the $50M offer, you have a good chance of getting a better outcome than hiring the one guy for $250M?
The pressure didn't come from investors. Investors expect Meta to increase capex by $30bn next year, a few engineers here or there is a rounding error in financial models.
There has to be adverse selection here from the amount of money being offered right? Like ok, very few people could turn it down, but it's not going to result in a motivated team.
I am imagining all these overpaid founders etc just sitting in a room like reality show contestants. Trying to make smalltalk, brainstorm jamming for months, not really producing much because... who cares, they have unbelievable money and this is the weirdest scenario ever.
I would imagine there is some sort of incentive structure for the megamillions being offered by meta to these people not just throwing all of the money at them upfront. Payout structed around meeting measurable goals not just show up and collect fuck you money. Or maybe it is silcon valley redux and they will set on the roof with big head what do I know.
If a business spends $40B to try to develop a new line if business, that is a business expense. If you are claiming that Meta’s R&D for virtual reality was not a legitimate business expense, but purely for Zuckerberg’s personal satisfaction, then good luck proving that.
Or are you arguing for a tax on revenue, instead of profit?
>are trivially available for a billionaires pet project.
What could this even mean? That it is trivial to become a majority owner of a business with enough cash flow to be able to spend $40B on R&D? If so, then you we live in different universes.
Not my opinion on it being a $40b plaything. That came straight from swe from meta who complain about it in these terms here on HN. It just tells me that their tax burden is too low. The fact that zuck is a billionaire means it’s also too low.
Gift link: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/meta-ai-hiring-freeze-fda6b3c4?s...
Thanks for sharing.
Pretty aggressive paywall that is blocking archive.is and won't allow viewing a gift link without an account.
> won't allow viewing a gift link without an account.
Huh, that’s new. I didn’t realize they started doing that.
> As of mid-August, Meta had successfully hired more than 20 researchers and engineers from OpenAI for the effort, at least 13 from Google, three from Apple, three from xAI and two from Anthropic for a total of 50-plus new employees.
The rest of us look for cultural fit.
Meta already bought all openAI’s secrets; now it just needs to let the GPUs cook.
When it is framed in this way the compensations are rational.
What makes you think the secrets are small enough to fit inside people's heads, and aren't like a huge codebase of data scraping and filtering pipelines, or a DB of manual labels?
I'd be embarrassed to work for Meta or have it on my resume/CV
If you land a $250MM total comp package, you probably won’t need to worry about being embarrassed about what companies are on your resume.
Not exactly many make that even at crazy Meta. And now no one anymore will as they're ending their latest fad hiring.
You'd think instead of paying 1 really good engineer $250M you could pay 5 really good engineers $50M each.
This is a Bighead on the roof scenario. They aren't paying $250m to actually have $250m worth of work produced. They're paying it so that their competition doesn't have it.
I liked it better when companies were hoarding bootcamp grads.
If they are worth $250M to not work imagine how much they’d be worth if they said “screw that I’ll spin out my own company and license myself out.” I guess being paid a quarter billion to not work is hard to argue against though.
That implies that the dude can generate $250M+ of value in a couple years. No need to put him on the roof, make him work. But, my point is - doesn't it seem reasonable that if you hire 5 people who take the $50M offer, you have a good chance of getting a better outcome than hiring the one guy for $250M?
why do you need hiring when you have ai?
Surely Meta is going to be the company that turns LLMs into, not just AGI, but ASI.
Boy are they going to make that instagram feed fire.
Interesting that investors can pressure Meta this way. I assumed that since Zuck has the “power shares” he can overrule anyone?
The pressure didn't come from investors. Investors expect Meta to increase capex by $30bn next year, a few engineers here or there is a rounding error in financial models.
There has to be adverse selection here from the amount of money being offered right? Like ok, very few people could turn it down, but it's not going to result in a motivated team.
I am imagining all these overpaid founders etc just sitting in a room like reality show contestants. Trying to make smalltalk, brainstorm jamming for months, not really producing much because... who cares, they have unbelievable money and this is the weirdest scenario ever.
I would imagine there is some sort of incentive structure for the megamillions being offered by meta to these people not just throwing all of the money at them upfront. Payout structed around meeting measurable goals not just show up and collect fuck you money. Or maybe it is silcon valley redux and they will set on the roof with big head what do I know.
You’re assuming they’re not ambitious, self-motivated, or curious.
Usually things that go away with lots of money and corporate structure. I bet a good part of those new hires will land on the roof sooner or later.
But I've always dreamed about being laid off for low performance by Meta.
Makes sense the payroll numbers of true are those of a 300+ person AI startup.
Layoffs incoming?
without paywall: https://archive.is/20250821033002/https://www.wsj.com/tech/a...
Lol. Meta has always been such a clownshow...
They have burnt $40B on metaverse fantasy!
Taxes are way too low
You don't think those employees and vendors' employees and/or vendors' shareholders paid taxes on their income, capital gains, and/or dividends?
I think they paid taxes and I think they are too low.
Based on the fact that Meta was able to spend $x money on developing VR?
Seems like pretty arbitrary and baseless reasoning to conclude taxes liabilities were too low.
Just a sign that profits aren’t being sufficiently taxed if $40b are trivially available for a billionaires pet project.
If a business spends $40B to try to develop a new line if business, that is a business expense. If you are claiming that Meta’s R&D for virtual reality was not a legitimate business expense, but purely for Zuckerberg’s personal satisfaction, then good luck proving that.
Or are you arguing for a tax on revenue, instead of profit?
>are trivially available for a billionaires pet project.
What could this even mean? That it is trivial to become a majority owner of a business with enough cash flow to be able to spend $40B on R&D? If so, then you we live in different universes.
Not my opinion on it being a $40b plaything. That came straight from swe from meta who complain about it in these terms here on HN. It just tells me that their tax burden is too low. The fact that zuck is a billionaire means it’s also too low.
Found the one guy who still believes in the "trickle-down economics" con.
Others can only hope their clown show is as successful:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/META/meta-platform...
[flagged]
Sounds like another thing he stole from the Winklevoss twins.
[flagged]