Connect with us

News

Meta plans to invest $15bn in Scale AI in bid to catch up to rivals

Published

on

Meta plans to invest bn in Scale AI in bid to catch up to rivals

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Meta plans to invest about $15bn in data-labelling start-up Scale AI and hire the group’s co-founder and top researchers, in one of the biggest deals of its kind as the Big Tech company seeks to catch up with rivals.

The deal, which could be announced as soon as Wednesday, would give Meta a 49 per cent stake in Scale AI and value the start-up at roughly $28bn, according to people with knowledge of the matter. It would mark the second consecutive year that Scale AI has doubled its valuation.

The investment in Scale AI and attempt to poach its top talent was part of Meta’s plan to build a “superintelligence” lab that would outperform OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, which are also developing models they claim will exceed human intelligence, according to one of the people.

Advertisement

Scale AI declined to comment, and Meta did not respond to a request for comment.

The launch of Meta’s latest large language model, Llama 4, underwhelmed critics after it underperformed on independent reasoning and coding benchmarks.

Meanwhile, competitors such as Google, OpenAI and Anthropic have each unveiled a new generation of powerful “reasoning” models, which solve problems by breaking them down step by step. Meta is also facing pressure from open source competitors such as China’s DeepSeek that have built powerful models for a fraction of the cost.

Meta, with a market capitalisation of nearly $2tn, has invested heavily in generative artificial intelligence. But progress has been halting and chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has reorganised the efforts multiple times. Meta announced in April the departure of Joelle Pineau, vice-president of AI research.

Alexandr Wang, a 28-year-old paper billionaire who co-founded Scale AI in 2016, is set to join Meta’s “superintelligence” lab, the details of which were first reported by The New York Times. Details of Meta’s investment were first reported by Bloomberg and The Information.

Advertisement

Scale AI’s core business involves manually labelling the data that is used to train advanced AI models to ensure it is accurate.

Wang has forged relationships with Silicon Valley’s biggest investors and technologists, including OpenAI’s Sam Altman, and has positioned Scale AI to serve companies developing autonomous vehicles and more recently those building generative AI models.

But his talents lie in promoting the company rather than managing its staff or furthering AI research, according to multiple people who have worked with him.

Jason Droege, who joined Scale AI from Uber Eats less than a year ago, was expected to step up from chief strategy officer to chief executive, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

The fate of Scale AI’s remaining employees is less clear. Wang recently spoke about his desire to take the start-up public, but the potential deal with Meta casts uncertainty over that goal.

Advertisement

Scale AI had been attempting to broaden its revenue sources following investor concerns about its concentrated services, according to one person with knowledge of the matter. The group has increasingly focused on building custom applications for enterprises and bidding for government contracts.

Last year, Microsoft paid $650mn to hire Inflection boss Mustafa Suleyman and his top lieutenants, and to license the start-up’s technology. Google also paid $2.7bn for a similar arrangement with Character AI.

The bespoke structures used by the Big Tech groups were partly designed to avoid probes from regulators, according to people with knowledge of the deals. But Google and Microsoft have nonetheless faced scrutiny from antitrust enforcers.

Additional reporting by Hannah Murphy

Advertisement

News

How Each House Member Voted on the Iran War Powers Resolution

Published

on

How Each House Member Voted on the Iran War Powers Resolution

Advertisement

Advertisement

Measure passed with 215 “yes” votes to 208 “no” votes.
Vote Total Democrats Republicans Bar chart of total votes
215 211 4
208 0 208

Advertisement

Note: Representative Kevin Kiley of California is an independent who caucuses with the Republicans.

The House on Wednesday passed a measure to direct President Trump withdraw U.S. forces from Iran or win congressional approval to continue military operations there. The vote was the fourth of its kind in the chamber since the war began, the previous three having failed.

A vote on this measure was originally scheduled for last month but was pulled by House Republican leaders after it became clear they lacked the votes at the time to defeat it because of several members’ absences. Several Republicans were also absent on Wednesday, but party leaders were unable to delay the vote any longer.

Advertisement

Votes fell mostly along party lines, with the exception of four Republicans, who voted with Democrats to pass the measure. Representative Jared Golden, Democrat of Maine, who had previously voted with Republicans, flipped and voted with his party.

Republicans who voted against their party

Advertisement

The House vote came after four Senate Republicans last month broke from their party to advance a measure to assert the legislature’s role in authorizing the war. The Senate had rejected seven other similar measures, but Republicans in both chambers have expressed increased uneasiness with the conflict as it wears on.

Even if a war powers resolution passed in both the House and Senate, it would be subject to an all-but-certain veto by Mr. Trump, which would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. Beyond that, the president and his senior aides have frequently dismissed efforts by Congress to rein in his war powers, saying they are unconstitutional.

Advertisement

How Every Member Voted

Advertisement

Republicans

Advertisement

Member Answer

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

No

Advertisement

No

No

Advertisement

Did not vote

Did not vote

Did not vote

Did not vote

Did not vote

Advertisement

Did not vote

Democrats

Member Answer
Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Yes

Advertisement

Yes

Did not vote

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

House votes to rein in Trump on Iran as war loses GOP support

Published

on

House votes to rein in Trump on Iran as war loses GOP support

Washington — The House on Wednesday passed a measure that would force President Trump to end the war with Iran without congressional authorization, marking the first time the lower chamber has defied the White House on the conflict. 

The House voted 215 to 208 to approve the war powers resolution with the help of four Republicans. Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, who has voted against the three previous failed attempts, also dropped his opposition and voted for the measure, giving his party unanimity on the issue.

Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Barrett of Michigan and Warren Davidson of Ohio voted with Democrats in favor of the measure.

Democrats in the chamber erupted in applause after passage.

The vote was supposed to take place before lawmakers left for the Memorial Day recess, but House GOP leaders abruptly pulled the vote when it became clear they did not have the numbers to block it. Several Republicans were absent and others were expected to support it. 

Advertisement

The Senate advanced a similar measure in May to rein in Mr. Trump on Iran after four Republicans joined all but one Democrat to push it forward. Three Republican absences also helped deliver the breakthrough after seven previous unsuccessful votes. 

But the Senate’s procedural vote was just the first step on the way to potential passage, and Republicans will have another opportunity to block it in the coming days.

It’s unclear when they plan to vote on the House version. In a statement, House Democratic leaders called on Senate Republicans “to do the right thing.” 

Support for the war from some Republicans waned after the conflict passed a statutory 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the president must remove armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not authorized the war. The war passed the deadline on May 1, but the administration has argued that a fragile ceasefire stopped the clock in early April, though both sides have carried out attacks since then.

The Trump administration has also argued the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional, though that theory has never been tested in court.

Advertisement

Republicans who have voted in favor of limiting Mr. Trump’s military powers in Iran have been uncomfortable with the lack of congressional authorization on the war and a strategy to end it. Some fear the war’s unpopularity and the economic fallout could harm the GOP’s chances at keeping control of Congress after the midterm elections in November. 

GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson of Iowa, who is running for Senate, said in a private exchange at a campaign stop last week that the war could be a “political liability” if it continues beyond “the next couple of weeks,” according to audio obtained by CBS News. 

But Mr. Trump said last month he was in “no hurry” to make a deal with Iran ahead of the midterms. 

“Everybody’s saying, ‘Oh, the midterms, I’m in a hurry.’ I’m in no hurry,” he said. 

The resolution approved Wednesday was introduced in April by Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It directs the president “to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran,” unless Congress declares war or authorizes the use of military force. 

Advertisement

Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, earlier Wednesday called it a “stupid political vote” that “weakens the president’s hands as he’s negotiating with Iran.” 

After the vote, Meeks brushed off the assertion that the war powers votes have undercut the president during negotiations with Iran. When asked whether Democrats would keep forcing votes to end the Iran war, Meeks told reporters, “You can expect us to continue to do our jobs.” 

“We’re going to continue to do our constitutional responsibilities,” he said. 

Fitzpatrick, who also voted in favor of a war powers resolution in May, said, “The law is the law.” 

“We have to follow the law. There’s a law on the books,” Fitzpatrick said. “So you have two choices: You either follow the law or you change the law. You can’t violate the law. That’s not an option.” 

Advertisement

During floor debate on the measure on May 20, Democrats questioned why Republicans haven’t held a vote on an authorization for military force to provide Mr. Trump with legal guardrails for attacking Iran. 

“If my Republican colleagues believe this is justified, they should bring an AUMF to the floor,” Meeks said.

There’s been little momentum so far behind an AUMF introduced by Barrett earlier in May. 

Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, an independent who caucuses with Republicans, argued there are “better tools” for Congress to assert its authority. 

“We actually have the ability to provide direction as to how funds should be used,” Kiley said, referring to Congress’ power of the purse. “I understand why people want to use whatever tools are available, but I believe that Congress should use those tools of congressional oversight and the powers we have under Article I that really have teeth here.” 

Advertisement

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: 5.1-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes off the Coast of California

Published

on

Map: 5.1-Magnitude Earthquake Strikes off the Coast of California

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A moderately strong, 5.1-magnitude earthquake struck in the North Pacific Ocean on Wednesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 5:45 a.m. Pacific time about 40 miles west of Petrolia, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Advertisement

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 6:03 a.m. Pacific time. Aftershocks data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 8:01 a.m. Pacific time.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending