Sorry for the delay in replying and thanks for another high-effort (the opposite of low-effort) reply. To clarify, I didn't think that Einstein was "A lone the

Sorry for the delay in replying and thanks for another high-effort (the opposite of low-effort) reply. To clarify, I didn't think that Einstein was "A lone theoretician plugging away on their own", that was a more general stereotype and kind of hypothetical. My understanding is that even in his time Einstein had ready enough access to others' work and there are at least two famous results of his collaboration with Podolsky and Rosen I'm aware of. It's an interesting question how differently he would have worked in today's world. Even the idea of scientific research is very different today than in his time. I don't reckon he had to spend so much time writing grant proposals as modern senior academics, for instance (fortunately I'm just a post-doc at this point, but I observe the effect it has on my PI; basically, their research career is over. Which is where I come in I guess. Bit of a digression this). >> (It also goes into "metahistory" of science or metaphysics or whatever which is even less of a passion, so I'm afraid I won't engage with your summary of LeCun. I'm not familiar with him (yes I know, it's HN, but...), there's no obvious overlapping expertise. I'm not sure I'd get it right if I were to comment much more on the relativist/astrophysicist "dance" I mention below, and I simply would not know what I'm talking about when it comes to AI, computer vision, etc.) I appreciate this. I, too, don't try to have an opinion about everything and anything and prefer to stick to my area of expertise. There are enough different disciplines in AI research that I can probably keep learning until I'm dead; which is what I intend to do. Thank you for the conversation and I appreciate also your kind deviation from the matters of your immediate interest. It has been a pleasure to read.