←back to thread

Yann LeCun to depart Meta and launch AI startup focused on 'world models'

(www.nasdaq.com)
760 points MindBreaker2605 | 5 comments | 12 Nov 25 07:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
mehulashah ◴[12 Nov 25 13:21 UTC] No.45899804[source]▶
Most of the folks on this topic are focused on Meta and Yann’s departure. But, I’m seeing something different.

This is the weirdest technology market that I’ve seen. Researchers are getting rewarded with VC money to try what remains a science experiment. That used to be a bad word and now that gets rewarded with billions of dollars in valuation.

replies(32): >>45899874 #>>45899875 #>>45899899 #>>45899901 #>>45900006 #>>45900079 #>>45900194 #>>45900255 #>>45900503 #>>45900521 #>>45900598 #>>45900784 #>>45900879 #>>45900974 #>>45901096 #>>45901209 #>>45901645 #>>45901914 #>>45902184 #>>45902195 #>>45902236 #>>45902357 #>>45902533 #>>45902641 #>>45902792 #>>45902972 #>>45903154 #>>45903226 #>>45903630 #>>45904085 #>>45904807 #>>45906016 #
gdulli ◴[12 Nov 25 14:39 UTC] No.45900784[source]▶
If a "science experiment" has the chance to displace most labor then whoever's successful at the experiment wins the economy, period. There's nothing weird or surprising about the logic of them obsessively chasing it. They all have to, it's a prisoner's dilemma.
replies(2): >>45900867 #>>45904732 #
0_____0 ◴[12 Nov 25 14:45 UTC] No.45900867[source]▶
Fusion power has the chance to displace most power generation, and whoever is successful at the experiment wins the energy economy, period. However given the long timelines, high cost of research, and the unanswered technical questions around materials that can withstand neutron flux, the total 2024 investment into fusion is only around $10B, versus AI's 250+B.

Why are these so different?

replies(3): >>45901630 #>>45901661 #>>45901920 #
1. gdulli ◴[12 Nov 25 15:52 UTC] No.45901661[source]▶
People are unsophisticated and see how convincing LLM output looks on the surface. They think it's already intelligent, or that intelligence is just around the corner. Or that its ability to displace labor, if not intelligence, is imminent.

If consumption of slop turns out to be a novelty that goes away and enough time goes by without a leap to truly useful intelligence, the AI investment will go down.

replies(1): >>45902220 #
2. SamPatt ◴[12 Nov 25 16:36 UTC] No.45902220[source]▶
If we define intelligence as problem solving ability, then AI makes _me_ more intelligent, and I'm willing to pay for that.
replies(1): >>45902804 #
3. gdulli ◴[12 Nov 25 17:18 UTC] No.45902804[source]▶
The calculator didn't make people better at math, it led to a society of people who can't do math without a calculator. And as a result math doesn't get done in many casual situations where it would be helpful, but people don't go to the trouble of pulling out the calculator.

So it's made it easier for people to be taken advantage of at the grocery store etc.

replies(2): >>45903081 #>>45905054 #
4. SamPatt ◴[12 Nov 25 17:37 UTC] No.45903081{3}[source]▶
You blame the calculator for people's innumeracy?

I'd argue it's a failure of education or general lack of intelligence. The existence of a tool to speed the process up doesn't preclude people understanding the process.

I don't think this relates as closely to AI as you seem to. I'm simply better at building things, and doing things, with AI than without. Not just faster, better. If that's not true for you, you're either using it wrong or maybe you already knew how to do everything already - if so, good for you!

5. Zanfa ◴[12 Nov 25 19:30 UTC] No.45905054{3}[source]▶
Most people are equally bad at math with or without a calculator. The problem for the average person isn’t that they can’t add two numbers, it’s that they can’t tell which numbers they should be adding in the first place.