351–360 of 680 posts
He’s not completely wrong in the sense that hallucinations aren’t completely solved but hallucinations definitely are becoming less and less to the point where AI can de a daily driver for even coders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Knowledge models, like ontologies, always seem suspect to me; like they promise a schema for crisp binary facts, when the world is full of probabilistic and fuzzy information loosely categorized by fallible humans based on an ever slowly shifting social consensus. Everything from the sorites paradox to leaky abstractions; everything real defies precise definition when you look closely at it, and when you try to abstr…
>Knowledge models, like ontologies, always seem suspect to me; like they promise a schema for crisp binary facts, when the world is full of probabilistic and fuzzy information loosely categorized by fallible humans based on an ever slowly shifting social consensus. I don't disagree that the world is full of fuzziness. But the problem I have with this portrayal is that formal models are often normative rather than ana…
> Our probabilistic, fuzzy concepts are often simply a misconception.
How eg a credit card works today is defined by financial institutions. How it might work tomorrow is defined by politics, incentives, and human action. It's not clear how to model those with formal language.
I think most systems we interact with are fuzzy because they are in a continual state of change due to the aforementioned human society factors.
It would have been just as interesting to read that he moved over to Google, where the real brains and resources are located at. Meta is now just competing against giants like OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, plus all the new Chinese companies; I see no real chance for them to offer a popular chat model, but rather to market their AI as a bundled product for companies which want to advertise, where the images and videos…
Brains yes, outcome? I doubt it. Have you used Gemini?
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.
> Researchers are getting rewarded with VC money to try what remains a science experiment. That used to be a bad word I’ve worked for multiple startups and I’ve watched startup job boards most of my career. A lot of VC backed startups have a founder with a research background and are focused on providing out some hypothesis. I don’t see anything uncommon about this arrangement. If you live near a University that does…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meta hiring researchers en masse at $100m+ pay packages is fairly new, as of this summer. I don't know if that's indicative of the market as a whole though. Zuck just seems really gutted they fell behind with Llama 4.
> Meta hiring researchers en masse at $100m+ pay packages is fairly new, as of this summer. En masse? Wasn't it just a couple of outliers?
- Kimi proved we don’t need Nvidia - Deepseek proved we didn’t need OpenAI - the real issue the insane tyranny in the west competing against the entire free world. The models aren’t Chinese they are the entire world, unless I became Chinese without realizing
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.
Every startup is an experiment; only 2% succeed.
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.
> This is the weirdest technology market that I’ve seen. You must have not lived through the dot com boom. There was almost everything under the sun was being sold under a website that started with an "e". ePets, ePlants, eStamps, eUnderwear, eStocks, eCards, eInvites.....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I politely disagree - it is exactly an industry researcher's purpose to do the risky things that may not work, simply because the rest of the corporation cannot take such risks but must walk on more well-trodden paths. Corporate R&D teams are there to absorb risk, innovate, disrupt, create new fields, not for doing small incremental improvements. "If we know it works, it's not research." (Albert Einstein) I also agre…
Knowledge models, like ontologies, always seem suspect to me; like they promise a schema for crisp binary facts, when the world is full of probabilistic and fuzzy information loosely categorized by fallible humans based on an ever slowly shifting social consensus. Everything from the sorites paradox to leaky abstractions; everything real defies precise definition when you look closely at it, and when you try to abstr…