←back to thread

760 points MindBreaker2605 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
sebmellen ◴[] No.45897467[source]
Making LeCun report to Wang was the most boneheaded move imaginable. But… I suppose Zuckerberg knows what he wants, which is AI slopware and not truly groundbreaking foundation models.
replies(20): >>45897481 #>>45897498 #>>45897518 #>>45897885 #>>45897970 #>>45897978 #>>45898040 #>>45898053 #>>45898092 #>>45898108 #>>45898186 #>>45898539 #>>45898651 #>>45898727 #>>45899160 #>>45899375 #>>45900884 #>>45900885 #>>45901421 #>>45903451 #
ACCount37 ◴[] No.45897970[source]
That was obviously him getting sidelined. And it's easy to see why.

LLMs get results. None of the Yann LeCun's pet projects do. He had ample time to prove that his approach is promising, and he didn't.

replies(3): >>45898088 #>>45898122 #>>45898749 #
camillomiller ◴[] No.45898122[source]
LLMs get results is quite the bold statement. If they get results, they should be getting adopted, and they should be making money. This is all built on hazy promises. If you had marketable results, you wouldn't have to hide 20+ billion dollars of debt financing into an obscure SPV. LLMs are the most baffling piece of tech. They are incredible, and yet marred by their non-deterministic hallucinatory nature, and bound to fail in adoption unless you convince everyone that they don't need precision and accuracy, but they can do their business at 75% quality, just with less human overhead. It's quite the thing to convince people of, and that's why it needs the spend it's needing. A lot of we-need-to-stay-in-the-loop CEOs and bigwigs got infatuated with the idea, and most probably they just had their companies get addicted to the tech equivalent of crack cocaine. A reckoning is coming.
replies(3): >>45898203 #>>45898220 #>>45898398 #
miohtama ◴[] No.45898398[source]
OpenAI and Anthropic are making north of 4B/year revenue so some companies have figured out the money making part. ChatGPT has some 800M users according to some calculations. Whether it's enough money today, enough money tomorrow, is of course a question but there is a lot of money. Users would not use them in a scale if they do not solve their problems.
replies(2): >>45898847 #>>45898896 #
Hendrikto ◴[] No.45898896[source]
It’s easy to make 1 billion by spending 10 billion. That’s not “making money” though, it is lighting it on fire.
replies(1): >>45900338 #
aryonoco ◴[] No.45900338[source]
People used to say this about Amazon all the time. Remember how Amazon basically didn’t turn any real profits for 2 decades? The joke was that Amazon was a charitable organisation being funded by Wall Street for the benefit of human kind.

That didn’t last. People in the know knew that once you have a billion users and insane revenue and market power and have basically bought or driven out of business most of your competitors (Diapers.com, Jet.com, etc) you can eventually slow down your physical expansion, tighten the screws on your suppliers, increase efficiencies, and start printing money.

The VCs who are funding these companies are hoping that they have found the next Amazon. Many will probably go out of business, but some might join the ranks of trillion dollar companies.

replies(2): >>45901003 #>>45901425 #
1. hitarpetar ◴[] No.45901425[source]
this gets brought up a lot, and the reality is that the scale of Amazon's losses is completely dwarfed by what's going on now