Meta's Zuckerberg chats with Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella at developer conference
Working to differentiate itself in the crowded field of artificial intelligence, Meta Platforms has launched a standalone AI app - with a social media component - to compete with OpenAI's ChatGPT. The Meta AI app, built with the company's Llama 4 AI system. It includes a "discover" feed that lets users see how others are interacting with AI. It also has a voice mode for interacting with the AI. "It's smart for Meta to differentiate its ChatGPT competitor by drawing from the company's social media roots. The app's Discover feed is like a version of the OG Facebook Feed but only focused on AI use cases," said Forrester research director Mike Proulx.
By letting users link their Facebook and Instagram accounts, the Meta AI app "gets a leg up on instantly personalising its user experience with social media context."
Meta has taken a different approach to AI than many of its rivals, releasing it for free as an open-source product. The company says more than a billion people use its AI products each month.
At the Menlo Park, California-based tech giant's inaugural conference, LlamaCon, on Tuesday Meta CEO Mark
Zuckerberg
chatted with Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella in a technical discussion around the speed of AI development and how the technology is shifting both their companies - where AI is already writing code - as well as the world.
Acknowledging there is a lot of "hype" around AI, Zuckerberg said "if this is going to lead to massive increases in productivity, that needs to be reflected in major increases in GDP."
"This is going take some multiple years, many years, to play out," Zuckerberg said. "I'm curious how you think, what's your current outlook on what we should be looking for to understand the progress that this is making?"
Nadella brought up the advent of electricity, saying that "AI has the promise, but you now have to sort of really have it deliver the real change in productivity - and that requires software and also management change, right? Because in some sense, people have to work with it differently."
He said it took 50 years before people figured out to change how factories operated with electricity.
Zuckerberg replied "well we're all investing as if it's not going to take 50 years, so I hope it doesn't take 50 years."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Sundar Pichai answers who would be next Google CEO
Google chief executive Sundar Pichai expects artificial intelligence to play a critical role in the tech giant's future leadership during the Bloomberg Tech Conference earlier this week. On the question of whether a human or AI will run Google in future, Pichai stated, 'I do think whoever is running it will have an extraordinary AI companion .' 'The products we built tremendously impact society. The journey of technologies, doing the hard work to make sure you're harnessing it in a way that benefits people. I think that'll be an important quality to have,' the Google CEO said. Before Pichai took the stage, Meta Platforms Chief Technology Officer (CTO) Andrew Bosworth said there has been a cultural shift in Silicon Valley , where it is now more palatable for the tech industry to develop resources for the US military. The company announced a partnership with defence contractor Anduril Industries Inc. last week to develop products for the US military, including an artificial intelligence-powered helmet with virtual and augmented reality features. Pichai said Google's parent Alphabet will keep hiring engineers at least into 2026, emphasising that human talent remains key even as the company ramps up AI investments. Discover the stories of your interest Blockchain 5 Stories Cyber-safety 7 Stories Fintech 9 Stories E-comm 9 Stories ML 8 Stories Edtech 6 Stories 'I expect we will grow from our current engineering base even into next year, because it allows us to do more with the opportunity space,' Pichai said. 'I just view this as making engineers dramatically more productive, getting a lot of the mundane aspects out of what they do.' Tech majors, like Microsoft, have fired more staff this year, reflecting in part the enormous investments needed to ensure leadership in AI. The firings have stoked fears about the technology replacing certain job functions. Google itself has conducted rounds of layoffs in recent years to free up resources. Pichai pointed out that while AI excels in areas like coding, the models continue to make basic mistakes, requiring human intervention.
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Thinking AI models collapse in face of complex problems, Apple researchers find
Just days ahead of the much-anticipated Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC), Apple has released a study titled 'The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity', which saw researchers testing 'reasoning'; AI models such as Anthropic's Claude, OpenAI's o models, DeepSeek R1 and Google's Thinking models to see how far they can scale to replicate human reasoning. Spoiler alert — not as much, as the entire AI marketing pitch, would have you believe. Could this signal what may be in store for Apple's AI conversation ahead of the keynote? The study questions the current standard evaluation of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) using established mathematical and coding benchmarks, arguing they suffer from data contamination and don't reveal insights into reasoning trace structure and quality. Instead, it proposes a controlled experimental testbed using algorithmic puzzle environments. The limitations of AI benchmarking, and need to evolve, is something we had written about earlier. 'We show that state-of-the-art LRMs (e.g., o3-mini, DeepSeek-R1, Claude-3.7-Sonnet-Thinking) still fail to develop generalizable problem-solving capabilities, with accuracy ultimately collapsing to zero beyond certain complexities across different environments,' the researcher paper points out. These findings are a stark warning to the industry — current LLMs are far from general-purpose reasoners. The emergence of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs), such as OpenAI's o1/o3, DeepSeek-R1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking, and Gemini Thinking, has been hailed as a significant advancement, potentially marking steps toward more general artificial intelligence. These models characteristically generate responses following detailed 'thinking processes', such as a long Chain-of-Thought sequence, before providing a final answer. While they have shown promising results on various reasoning benchmarks, the capability of benchmarks to judge rapidly evolving models, itself is in doubt. The researchers cite a comparison between non-thinking LLMs and their 'thinking' evolution. 'At low complexity, non-thinking models are more accurate and token-efficient. As complexity increases, reasoning models outperform but require more tokens—until both collapse beyond a critical threshold, with shorter traces,' they say. The illustrative example of the Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Claude 3.7 Sonnet Thinking illustrates how both models retain accuracy till complexity level three, after which the standard LLM sees a significant drop, something the thinking model too suffers from, a couple of levels later. At the same time, the thinking model is using significantly more tokens. This research attempted to challenge prevailing evaluation paradigms, which often rely on established mathematical and coding benchmarks, which are otherwise susceptible to data contamination. Such benchmarks also primarily focus on final answer accuracy, providing limited insight into the reasoning process itself, something that is the key differentiator for a 'thinking' model compared with a simpler large language model. To address these gaps, the study utilises controllable puzzle environments — Tower of Hanoi, Checker Jumping, River Crossing, and Blocks World — and these puzzles allow for precise manipulation of problem complexity while maintaining consistent logical structures and rules that must be explicitly followed. That structure theoretically opens a window, a glance at how these models attempt to 'think'. The findings from this controlled experimental setup reveal significant limitations in current frontier LRMs. One of the most striking observations is the complete accuracy collapse that occurs beyond certain complexity thresholds across all tested reasoning models. This is not a gradual degradation but a sharp drop to near-zero accuracy as problems become sufficiently difficult. 'The state-of-the-art LRMs (e.g., o3-mini, DeepSeek-R1, Claude-3.7-Sonnet-Thinking) still fail to develop generalizable problem-solving capabilities, with accuracy ultimately collapsing to zero beyond certain complexities across different environments,' note the researchers. These results inevitably challenge any notion that the LRMs truly possess generalisation problem-solving skills, required for planning tasks or multi-step processes. The study also identifies a counter-intuitive scaling limit in the models' reasoning effort (this is measured by the inference token usage during the 'thinking' phase), which sees these models initially spend more tokens, but as complexity increases, they actually reduce reasoning effort closer to the inevitable accuracy collapse. Researchers say that 'despite these claims and performance advancements, the fundamental benefits and limitations of LRMs remain insufficiently understood. Critical questions still persist: Are these models capable of generalizable reasoning, or are they leveraging different forms of pattern matching?,' they ask. There are further questions pertaining to performance scaling with increasing problem complexity, comparisons to the non-thinking standard LLM counterparts when provided with the same inference token compute, and around inherent limitations of current reasoning approaches, as well as improvements that might be necessary to advance toward more robust reasoning. Where do we go from here? The researchers make it clear that their test methodology too has limitations. 'While our puzzle environments enable controlled experimentation with fine-grained control over problem complexity, they represent a narrow slice of reasoning tasks and may not capture the diversity of real-world or knowledge intensive reasoning problems,' they say. They do add that the use of 'deterministic puzzle simulators assumes that reasoning can be perfectly validated' at every step, a validation that may not be feasible to such precision in less structured domains. That they say, would restrict validity of analysis to more reasoning. There is little argument that LRMs represent progress, particularly for the relevance of AI. Yet, this study highlights that not all reasoning models are capable of robust, generalisable reasoning, particularly in the face of increasing complexity. These findings, ahead of WWDC 2025, and from Apple's own researchers, may suggest that any AI reasoning announcements will likely be pragmatic. The focus areas could include specific use cases where current AI methodology is reliable (the research paper indicates lower to medium complexity, less reliance on flawless long-sequence execution) and potentially integrating neural models with traditional computing approaches to handle the complexities where LRMs currently fail. The era of Large Reasoning Models is here, but this 'Illusion of thinking' study is that AI with true reasoning, remains a mirage.
Hindustan Times
10 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Why ChatGPT essays still fail to fool experts despite good structure, although they are clear and well structured
The advent of AI has marked the rise of many tools, and ChatGPT is one of the most popular ones. Often used for research and writing, this tool has often been the centre of discussion for its ability to fetch interesting content. However, A new study from the University of East Anglia (UEA) in the UK shows that essays written by real students are still better than those produced by ChatGPT, a popular AI writing tool. Researchers compared 145 essays written by university students with 145 essays generated by ChatGPT to see how well the AI can mimic human writing. The study found that although ChatGPT's essays are clear, well structured, and grammatically correct, they lack something important. The AI essays do not show personal insight or deep critical thinking, which are common in student writing. These missing elements make the AI-generated essays feel less engaging and less convincing. However, the researchers do not see AI only as a threat. They believe tools like ChatGPT can be helpful in education if used properly. Instead of shortcuts to finish assignments, AI should be a tool that supports learning and improves writing skills. After all, education is about teaching students how to think clearly and express ideas. These are things no AI can truly replace. One key difference the researchers looked at was how the writers engage readers. Real student essays often include questions, personal comments, and direct appeals to the reader. These techniques help make the writing feel more interactive and persuasive. On the other hand, ChatGPT's essays tend to avoid questions and personal opinions. They follow academic rules but do not show a clear viewpoint or emotional connection. Professor Ken Hyland from UEA explained that the AI focuses on creating text that is logical and smooth but misses conversational details that humans use to connect with readers. This shows that AI writing still struggles with capturing the personal style and strong arguments that real people naturally use.
