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

Post by iLoveOncall » Wed, Nov 12, 2025, 9:36 PM UTC

Anon1096 wrote: post #503

renegade-otter wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of them left in the first days on the job. I guess they saw what they were going to work on and peaced out. No one wants to work on AI slop and mental abuse of children on social media.

Stated without a shred of evidence and getting no pushback. Classic for a nonsense claim about big tech company HN doesn't like, lol.

Post by alex1138 » Wed, Nov 12, 2025, 9:38 PM UTC

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #587

ergocoder wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who gives a shit about who invented what? Social network wasn't even novel at the inception of FB. MySpace, Friendster, and Hi5 were already popular with millions of users. Zuck operated it well and was able to grow it from 0 to what it is today. That is what matters.

It didn't even start as a social network - it started off as a site to vote on the hotness of female Harvard students based on stolen photos. It just so happened that he does appear to have some leadership and business talent, but IMO the company is still as creepy as it ever was.

Post by mattmaroon » Wed, Nov 12, 2025, 9:46 PM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #483

mattmaroon wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes sense, it’s a simple expected value calculation. There are trillions of labor dollars that can be replaced by software. The US alone has almost $12 trillion of labor annually. If an AI company has a 10% shot of developing a product that can replace 10% of it, they are worth $120 billion in expected value. (These numbers are obviously just for illustration). The unprecedented numbers are a simple function of…

>If an AI company has a 10% shot of developing a product that can replace 10% of it, they are worth $120 billion in expected value. that's not how profits work. Companies don't get paid for the value they create but for the value they can capture , otherwise the ffmpeg people would already be trillionaires. If you have a dozen companies making the same general purpose technology, not product, your only hope is being…

Post by prairieroadent » Wed, Nov 12, 2025, 9:51 PM UTC

xnx wrote: post #486

mehulashah wrote: post #277

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. The phenomenon you're seeing is well described here: "The Perfect AI Startup" ( https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-09-29/the... ) “It was the most absurd pitch meeting,” one investor who met with Murati said. “She was like, ‘So we’re doing an AI company with the best AI people, but we can’t answer any questions.’” Despite that vagueness, Murati…

Post by foobiekr » Wed, Nov 12, 2025, 10:02 PM UTC

aryonoco wrote: post #335

Hendrikto wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s easy to make 1 billion by spending 10 billion. That’s not “making money” though, it is lighting it on fire.

People used to say this about Amazon all the time. Remember how Amazon basically didn’t turn any real profits for 2 decades? The joke was that Amazon was a charitable organisation being funded by Wall Street for the benefit of human kind. That didn’t last. People in the know knew that once you have a billion users and insane revenue and market power and have basically bought or driven out of business most of your com…