4 ms·
I would pose a question differently, under his leadership did Meta achieve good outcome? If the answer is yes, then better to keep him, because he has already
by throwaw12 11mo ago
I would pose a question differently, under his leadership did Meta achieve good outcome?
If the answer is yes, then better to keep him, because he has already proved himself and you can win in the long-term. With Meta's pockets, you can always create a new department specifically for short-term projects.
If the answer is no, then nothing to discuss here.
- rw2 11mo agoI believe that the fact that Chinese models are beating the crap of of Llama means it's a huge no.
- amelius 11mo agoWhy? The Chinese are very capable. Most DL papers have at least one Chinese name on it. That doesn't mean they are Chinese but it's telling.
- UrineSqueegee 11mo agois an american model chinese because chinese people were in the team?
- rob_c 11mo agomost papers are also written in the same language, what's your point?
- xuancanh 11mo agoMeta did exactly that, kept him but reduced his scope. Did the broader research community benefit from his research? Absolutely. But did Meta achieve a good outcome? Probably not. If you follow LeCun on social media, you can see that the way FAIR’s results are assessed is very narrow-minded and still follows the academic mindset. He mentioned that his research is evaluated by: "Research evaluation is a difficult task because the product impact may occur years (sometimes decades) after the work. For that reason, evaluation must often rely on the collective opinion of the research community through proxies such as publications, citations, invited talks, awards, etc." But as an industry researcher, he should know how his research fits with the company vision and be able to assess that easily. If the company's vision is to be the leader in AI, then as of now, he seems to have failed that objective, even though he has been at Meta for more than 10 years.
- nsonha 11mo agoAlso he always sounds like "I know this will not work". Dude are you a researcher? You're supposed to experiment and follow the results. That's what separates you from oracles and freaking philosophers or whatever.
- yawnxyz 11mo agohe probably predicted the asymptote everyone is approaching right now
- brazukadev 11mo agoSo did I after trying llama/Meta AI
- uoaei 11mo agoHe's speaking to the entire feedforward Transformer-based paradigm. He sees little point in continuing to try to squeeze more blood out of that stone and instead move on to more appropriate ways to model ontologies per se rather than the crude-for-what-we-use-them-for embedding-based methods that are popular today. I really resonate with his view due to my background in physics and information theory. I for one welcome his new experimentation in other realms while so many still hack away at their LLMs in pursuit of SOTA benchmarks.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- HarHarVeryFunny 11mo agoLeCun was always part of FAIR, doing research, not part of the LLM/product group, who reported to someone else.
- rockinghigh 11mo agoWasn't the original LLaMA developed by FAIR Paris?
- HarHarVeryFunny 11mo agoI hadn't heard that, but he was heavily involved in a cancelled project called Galactica that was an LLM for scientific knowledge.
- fooker 11mo agoYeah that stuff generated embarrassingly wrong scientific 'facts' and citations. That kind of hallucination is somewhat acceptable for something marketed as a chatbot, less so for an assistant helping you with scientific knowledge and research.
- baobabKoodaa 11mo agoI thought it was weird at the time how much hate Galactica got for its hallucinations compared to hallucinations of competing models. I get your point and it partially explains things. But it's not a fully satisfying explanation.
- fooker 11mo agoI guess another aspect is - being too early is not too different from being wrong.
- anotherd1p 11mo agothen we should ask: will Meta come close enough to the fulfillment of the promises made, or will it keep achieving good enough outcomes?