←back to thread

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

(www.nasdaq.com)
793 points MindBreaker2605 | 3 comments | 12 Nov 25 07:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.538s | source
Show context
sebmellen ◴[12 Nov 25 07:57 UTC] 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 #
xuancanh ◴[12 Nov 25 08:55 UTC] No.45897885[source]▶
In industry research, someone in a chief position like LeCun should know how to balance long-term research with short-term projects. However, for whatever reason, he consistently shows hostility toward LLMs and engineering projects, even though Llama and PyTorch are two of the most influential projects from Meta AI. His attitude doesn’t really match what is expected from a Chief position at a product company like Facebook. When Llama 4 got criticized, he distanced himself from the project, stating that he only leads FAIR and that the project falls under a different organization. That kind of attitude doesn’t seem suitable for the face of AI at the company. It's not a surprise that Zuck tried to demote him.
replies(13): >>45897942 #>>45898142 #>>45898331 #>>45898661 #>>45898893 #>>45899157 #>>45899354 #>>45900094 #>>45900130 #>>45900230 #>>45901443 #>>45901631 #>>45902275 #
blutoot ◴[12 Nov 25 10:55 UTC] No.45898661[source]▶
These are the types that want academic freedom in a cut-throat industry setup and conversely never fit into academia because their profiles and growth ambitions far exceed what an academic research lab can afford (barring some marquee names). It's an unfortunate paradox.
replies(3): >>45898951 #>>45899099 #>>45902308 #
sigbottle ◴[12 Nov 25 11:41 UTC] No.45898951[source]▶
Maybe it's time for Bell Labs 2?

I guess everyone is racing towards AGI in a few years or whatever so it's kind of impossible to cultivate that environment.

replies(13): >>45899122 #>>45899204 #>>45899373 #>>45899504 #>>45899663 #>>45899866 #>>45900147 #>>45900934 #>>45900995 #>>45901066 #>>45902188 #>>45902731 #>>45905111 #
ryukoposting ◴[12 Nov 25 12:12 UTC] No.45899204[source]▶
The Bell Labs we look back on was only the result of government intervention in the telecom monopoly. The 1956 consent decree forced Bell to license thousands of its patents, royalty free, to anyone who wanted to use them. Any patent not listed in the consent decree was to be licensed at "reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates."

The US government basically forced AT&T to use revenue from its monopoly to do fundamental research for the public good. Could the government do the same thing to our modern megacorps? Absolutely! Will it? I doubt it.

https://www.nytimes.com/1956/01/25/archives/att-settles-anti...

replies(1): >>45899620 #
aatd86 ◴[12 Nov 25 13:01 UTC] No.45899620[source]▶
Used to be a Google X. Not sure at what scale it was. But if any state/central bank was clever they would subsidize this. That's a better trickle down strategy. Until we get to agi and all new discoveries are autonomously led by AI that is :p
replies(1): >>45904500 #
1. williamDafoe ◴[12 Nov 25 19:02 UTC] No.45904500[source]▶
Google X is a complete failure. Maybe they had fei-fei on staff for a short while but most of her work was done elsewhere.
replies(2): >>45905604 #>>45906783 #
2. aatd86 ◴[12 Nov 25 20:01 UTC] No.45905604[source]▶
Didn't the current LLMs stem from this...? Or it might be Google Brain instead. For Google X, there is Waymo? I know a lot of stuff didn't pan out. This is expected. These were 'moonshots'.

But the principle is there. I think that when a company sits on a load of cash, that's what they should do. Either that or become a kind of alternative investments allocator. These are risky bets. But they should be incentivized to take those risks. From a fiscal policy standpoint for instance. Well it probably is the case already via lower taxation of capital gains and so on. But there should probably exist a more streamlined framework to make sure incentives are aligned.

And/or assigned government projects? Besides implementing their Cloud infrastructure that is...

3. godelski ◴[12 Nov 25 21:13 UTC] No.45906783[source]▶

  > Google X is a complete failure

  - Google Brain
  - Google Watch/Wear OS
  - Gcam/Pixel Camera
  - Insight (indoor GMaps)
  - Waymo
  - Verily
It is a moonshot factory after all, not a "we're only going to do things that are likely to succeed" factory. It's an internal startup space, which comes with high failure rates. But these successes seem pretty successful. Even the failed Google Glass seems to have led to learning, though they probably should have kept the team going considering the success of Meta Raybands and with things like Snap's glasses.

https://x.company/projects/#graduate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Development#Graduated_projec...