Thanks for adding contribution to this discussion like your contribution to the field. Salute.

Hope you succeed ln trying to learn ML concepts as well 💪

If you've read the comments, you will know the answer. You already went my profile for some stalking reasons yet you ignored that lol

i mean, you can see others using argument of authority for sure

i mean, you can see argument of authority from other people

Meta is a leader in the research community alongside Google as top contributors. The funny thing is that he started posting that graph of AI related paper contributions to show supremacy and to undermine OpenAI and DeepMind as merely consumers of research. But Meta hasnt provided any product from their research that has reached the public. When they tried, they immediately shut it down.

He also kinda blames the public perception as to why Meta cannot publish products without scrutiny pointing the thing that people are still overly criticizing Facebook/Meta for obviously great reasons in the past.

It is indeed a massive milestone maybe a bit above Stable Diffusion. I'd still argue that Github Copilot was bigger but since its mainly for devs, it didnt get the publicity that it wanted. It's a massive milestone because common folks pondered the idea of AI takeover which have shifted every one else's perspective on the domain. It's the culmination of decades of R&D that the public can interact to -- a gateway to AI and its complexities.

Common folks and the public do not really care about sophisticated algos that never see the light of day.

He said for production. Meta hasnt produced fully baked production-ready products from their research for public consumption.

That is the point of the post and Yann's reaction as a Meta employee reeks pettiness.

He first told everyone that ChatGPT is not revolutionary at all. May be a fair point. That's debatable. Then proceeds to post a chart about Meta and Google big tech as producers of research that others just consume. Then when asked about what research has they put into production, he claims that it's not that we CANT, it's that we WONT. Then proceeds to bring out what happened to Meta's first trial to do it -- Galactica that embarassingly failed. So all in all, he seems to be criticizing why these companies just consume established knowledge by sprinkling something on top from what they have published.

I'd honestly expect Google and META to be quite cautious now on how they publish stuff since OpenAI's moves build on top of the established research that they do.

No one also said they are publishing junk. That's a strawman. The point is that he's being overly critical to startups like OpenAI who consumes established knowledge that they voluntarily opened to the public and has started to profit from it, while they have failed to produce something profitable or usable for public consumption.

> some variant of it Just the other day, some researchers already released BioGPT which is trained on biomedical text. It's particularly good. Sitll needs some time to test its accuracy against real medical professionals

I'd respectfully disagree on the usage. While it has been shown to generate weird sequences, with the right usage, you can guide it to create particularly effective articles and stories. It's summarization tool is also good. Grammar is particularly good as well.

> What chatGPT represents to him

It can be true and petty at the same time. When asked, he will revert to complaining why Galactica was shut down blaming the people using it and pointing as to why ChatGPT does more mistakes but is still standing. Why would someone also suddenly post a paper contribution chart saying that others just 'consume' the research?

Fair point. But why is he blaming the people instead of his whole company going as far as "it's just people destroying Meta's reputation"?

I have high respects for him as a researcher, and in fact I've read his books and papers. He's great when he speaks as a researcher. It's different when he's speaks as a Meta employee vested with the companies interest. That's why I take his Meta-driven statements for/against companies with a grain of salt.

I wont be even surprised if the big tech companies are behind the Stable Diffusion/Midjourney lawsuit since it would do them good. Considering the fact that Meta partnered with Shutterstock to produce their own.

Exactly. He was blaming the users for the Galactica debacle and wondering why OpenAI's ChatGPT is getting adoption when "it spews the same bS" as per his words. And also proceeds to tell that it is just because people had been drstroying Meta's reputation overall.

> research isnt something that happens at startups

Entirely depends on the startup and the product. R&D happens on many startups. Unless someone has a limited exposure on AI and ML-oriented startups, this is far from truth. OpenAI is an applied research company. They produce research papers and puts it into production. In the electronics department, OnePlus has risen as a great R&D startup capable of producing rapid R&D-based products. Grammarly puts a ton of money on its R&D to create a more domain-specific GPT model because it is vital to their product.

> The divide you describe

One does not need to probe deeper into this. Ask an experienced Data Engineer, a Data Scientist, and a DevOps. There is a clear DISTINCTION of what they do and how they balance each other. The divide isnt hostile. It's more of "we want this, you cant have all of this type of relationship, besides the usual difference of who works with what.

That's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem attacks the subject as basis of its argument. Telling that this person is X based on Y is not ad hominem. It's a conclusion of the quotes I laid down.

The beef does not exist. But the divide between research and engineering exist. It's one of the fundamental reasons why some startups fail -- they dont know how to balance which and do not know how to construct a team. There's a "divide" between data science and data engineering and folks who work on that know that there is.

It's not bad. That's the entire point of the post.

Lecun's fanbois for sure.

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

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.

> 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

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.

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.

> to meet some KPI

Big tech in a nutshell

Or to close some JIRA tickets perhaps

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.