Lecun's fanbois for sure.

Or either side of the research or engineering perspective that has no clue what the other side does.

I have no clue why your are being down voted.

Please point out the 'ad hominem' against him instead of generalities when I just literally quoted all the things he said and gave my own take on it.

> infer intentionality

Point it out. You can conclude intentionality based on his line of reasoning, conversation trails, and position.

[removed]

>I get that he is one of the godfathers of AI. Mostly on the research side which immediately puts him very hostile against engineers

I find it odd that you seem to expect / want a serious conversation, but then start with some weird ad-hominem against the man. You talk about "fanbois" in your first sentence, but then expose yourself as nothing better, to be honest. The rest of your post isn't much better TBH - trying in infer intentionality and make false equivalencies.

I am also very petty, so it’s good to see I have stuff in common with an ML great.

Conflict, created by the first person in your example (me), and followed up by you, with outcomes scored by mostly incompatible criteria.

Since we are talking about language oracle class AIs, not sovereigns or free agents, it takes a human to take the outputs and enact to them, thus becoming responsible for the actions as it doesn’t matter what or who have the advice. It’s no different than substituting the “super intelligent AI” with “Congress”, or “parliament”.

(The hitchhikers guide outcome would be the AIs agree to put us on ice forever… or more insidiously constrain humanity to just one planet and keep the progress self regulated by conflict and they never leave their planet. Oh wait a second… 😉)

> some bad experiences thst led to these feelings

I work as an Applied Researcher so I do both research and engineering. No beef on it. It's bad to say it as beef. It's like "dev-QA" relationship. Researchers would want the largest models possible yielding the best metrics, Engineers want the easiest to deploy and monitor. The former also undermines what engineers do as just packaging it up. Yann just said it above.

tbf, he has screenshots where he talks to it, then posts it in his Twitter thread to say, I told you so

Yea looks like Meta is making him say this stuff.

I assumed he jerks off to chat GPT responses when he is alone. I am continuing to assume that tbh

This. Majority of reactions are irrationally exuberant and often pablum for the vacuous “content” creation cycle. It’s as if, if one doesn’t affirm the super positive, life altering results surely to come, you may get left behind. Let’s see what actual problems ChatGPT solves.

Fair point. But you can be correct and petty at the same time. Remember that he blamed the people using Galactica casually as the reason it got paused. Then wonders and asks people why ChatGPT hasn't faced the same backlash given that "it spouts sh-t*.

Although one could argue that usable LLMs in production are quite revolutionary. NVIDIA'S GauGan or GAN based txt to image models, the base diffusion models have been there for a year or two but hasn't received the same publicity and profits as Stable Diffusion or Midjorney. It's basically the same line of framework.

It's narrow-minded thinking to brush the architecture upgrades and the engineering work that made it possible -- which has always been his statements. But that is a fair point considering he is mainly a researcher not an engineer.

My take is that you seem quite intent on painting him as petty. His statements seem quite reasonable and rational, especially in the face of the over exuberant reactions we mostly see about chatGPT.

> Mostly on the research side which immediately puts him very hostile against engineers... It's a classic case of a researcher-engineer beef

Seems like you have had some bad experiences that led to these feelings. There is no built in animosity between these groups. Just different goals.

> It means intellectually transparent about the code

But you can't download any of the GPT models, or the code used to train them, so is it open in that sense?

You know its just being petty when he isnt even talking about it in the Generative Image space. ChatGPT is very much like Midjourney and Stable Diffusion where these models are small incremental updates over the main papers. But has put the proper applied research and MLOps work to bring these into production and profit from it.

If I listened to critics I would think zero progress has been made at all. Every time new software comes out that does something that couldn't be done before it's handwaved away as easy, or obvious, or something else. If it was so easy then it would have already been done. Well with ChatGPT...it has. https://beta.character.ai/ beat ChatGPT by a few months and has a bit more power because it's easier to make the chat bot answer as you want. I don't think it's as good as ChatGPT though.

How do your kids use it?

> to meet some KPI

Big tech in a nutshell

Or to close some JIRA tickets perhaps

Whatever Meta has put out in the past year has been fairly disappointing compared to what's already available—OPT, NLLB, Galactica. It probably advanced the field with the knowledge gleaned from producing these models, but for production, they all feel half-baked and lack polish. It was like they were just rushing out something to meet some KPI.

So yes, I find Lecun being petty that his team can't seem to produce something 'good' to the general public.

What are the math/ML prerequisites for this text?

And this would be many parameters for little... model

> I was teaching my kid how to solve arithmetic reasoning problems (not from the MultiArith dataset...

lol ..

> If I train you that every number plus another number is a number, but 2+2 is special and equals chair, you could determine I'm lying because it's not consistent with all the data as a whole.

If I train you that every animal isn't conscious, but humans are special and conscious, you could "determine" I'm lying because it's not consistent with all the data as a whole.

You can be factually correct and be petty at the same time. You can read more about his conversations with people who argue with him or all the the time he brings up Galactica's failed rollout comparing it to ChatGPT and wondering why it hasn't been paused as well given that, a quote from him, "that Galactica even produces less BS".

He also seems to undermine the rapid engineering work and MLOps that come with ChatGPT which is funny because Meta hasn't released any substantial product from their research that has seen the light of the day for a week. Also, GPT3 to ChatGPT in itself in a research perspective is a jump. Maybe not as incremental as what Lecun does every paper, but compared to an average paper in the field, it is.

You may have a toxic aunt. But if you always talk about it in the dinner table, that's petty.

Doesn't sound petty at all to me. Sounds like he's dispelling misconceptions about the progress ChatGPT represents.