[delayed]

Ok yeah but it’s not a certain bet. Resources are limited and you gotta allocate them efficiently.

10% chance to be market leader doesn’t sound as good as 60% second place to them for example

[delayed]

The job of the CEO is to assess the research risk correctly. Zuck made the right bet here to replace him.

The guy that named his company after his own diversion?

It's his call for sure, but rather funny as an argument.

The fact that someone made a mistake before doesn't mean that they will always make wrong calls.

not as a matter of certainty, but it certainly increases the bayesian prior probability of their calls being wrong

Maybe he is keeping the name as a constant reminder of the mistaken. Like Berkshire Hathaway: Warren Buffett says Berkshire Hathaway is the “dumbest” stock he ever bought. https://www.cnbc.com/2010/10/18/warren-buffett-buying-berksh...

[delayed]

They can buy LeCun’s new thing if it works out.

> It's not a distraction if the research pans out

It is because even if it would pan out, it would mean temporarily losing AI leadership, reducing stock price, losing the ability to hire talent, and by virtue of that losing the opportunity permanently.

The mainstream is wrong and in a lot of ways hazardous. He had every right to say he wasn't willing to sign is name on the wrong technology when he new better. When you hire smart people you listen to them. Elsewise you get what you deserve.

>when he new better

He was against LLMs, reinforcement learning, etc. Claiming that those are a dead-end. He was wrong. His own "JEPA" ideas have basically gone nowhere. Meta was right in moving on without him.

I'm not sure he was wrong. No one has solved the fundamental problem with LLMs, which is that they cannot be trusted.

Ok, so we're talking about applying connectionist systems/models to the messiness of the real world. And "trust" isn't an on-off switch. The goal is to build systems that are smarter and more general. It's a process. I don't think even Yann LeCun has made any strong claims beyond that. He just thinks that his way of doing deep learning is better.

Most humans can not be trusted either, that's why you have processes in place to test and review work

[delayed]

LeCun wasn't wrong. He simply had higher standards for results and accountability that LLMs are, by design, incapable of reaching.

Zuckerberg wanted to placate his shareholders with a shiny new thing now.

would've stopped Meta from delivering a polished product like Muse sooner.

Muse is not polished, unless usability and programming standards have fallen so far in the LLM vibe coding era that a pre-alpha state is now considered polished.

Compared to the user buying a Mac mini and following a tutorial off Twitter to install some random shit they found online?

Muse is imperfect, as is all software, but calling it pre-alpha is a bit much.

You will find brilliant scientists in every discipline who are not the least bit interested in a particular branch of research because they/their lab didn’t invent it. That’s fine for public research but not helpful private research.