You must log in or register to comment.
I wonder if Elon chose a timeframe of 5 years because Yann LeCun won the Turing Award in 2018.
I don’t think he deserves that much credit
Removed by mod
Usually I’d say you gotta end that with a /s. But I think the 7 way orgy should be enough.
It seems like it’s just trolling, not sarcasm as a joke. Just take a quick look at his comments on his profile.
Found the /p/ troll
That gives him too much credit.
He’s a dumbass. There’s actually no rhyme or reason why he chose that specific number.
He isn’t that smart.
Honestly why do people even engage with this hack.
To attempt to wake up those people who think Elon is actually God’s gift of mankind.
A wake up call on those people will have to go straight for their gut, instead of trying to throw facts at their faces. Even then, it’s a hard task
I think that he should have avoided the interaction with musk, if he planned to convince Musk of something.
If he planned to educate the general public, his approach is totally fine, though.
He did it for a two-fer. He educated the general public …and handed eloin his ass.
Meh, association taints.
Are those two things not the same?
I’m not sure what you mean. The act is the same but the intention of it differs imo. Do you want to elaborate on the topic?
Glad you asked. To be clear: I agree with your original comment.
I had this great, long, message drafted in my mind while in sauna, but I discarded (forgot) that one when I got back to the computer.
Let me elaborate my first reply. We have in the OP image the following actors: Musk and the challenger.
I think that he should have avoided the interaction with musk, if he planned to convince Musk of something.
- (#1) According to my previous knowledge about Musk’s interactions wherever in the world of Internet, I have come to the conclusion he is not the one to be convinced even with proof.
- (#2) If someone can challenge him during the interaction, he will most likely (always) counteract with snarky responses or just ignore the challenger totally. Like seen in the OP image.
- (#3) The challenger tried to convince him with proof.
If he planned to educate the general public, his approach is totally fine, though.
- (#4) Whilst the challenger commenced #3, he was really proofing the point/educating the public of the #1.
I like to think I managed to represent the Musk-like interaction in my previous reply; responding to your well built message with a snarky comment. Although, I think, I went too far with the dual interpretations.
E: Why is your reply being down-voted? My previous should be the more down-voted one. I also made a little correction to this message.
Thank you for the clarification. These points are indeed very similar to my thoughts (but I wouldn’t have been able to describe it so to the point. )
I like to think I managed to represent the Musk-like interaction in my previous reply; responding to your well built message with a snarky comment. Although, I think, I went too far with the dual interpretations.
I didn’t get that. So this part needed some explaining for me.
Why is your reply being down-voted
Maybe it is because I missed the sarcasm/ humour in your response. It’s hard to know if it isn’t written down as a response. :)
Imo it just makes things worse, esp. considering the platform is twitter. Interacting with musk won’t look good, given how manupulative musk is.
I love how muskrat had to put “science” in quotes.
“*pffffbtbtbt* Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true.” - Homer Simpson
I’m just imagining Musk banning his account once he realizes how much he just embarrassed himself.
Followed by:
Lawyer: What brings you in today, Mr. LeCun?
LeCun: I got banned from Twitter.
Lawyer: But I’m a patent attorney.
LeCun: I know.Beastie Boys “Sabotage” riff starts playing.
Read part 2.
Also methodology.
Why do people give that douche the time of day?
Because he owns a bunch of shit. That’s literally it. Nobody would give a single shit about him if he didn’t have money. I saw it put very eloquently like this:
Elon Musk is so poor that all he has is money.
his Twitter feed is full of things that would make you turn your head and act as it you don’t hear anything if it came from a random person on the subway. the only difference between this guy and the “crazy people” you see outside is that this guy has money he doesn’t deserve.
edit: i don’t know why i said Twitter feed. this includes everything he says in interviews as well
Damn that’s a good line.
His money gives him influence and power. That’s the real reason.
Because he is not your run-of-the-mill tech billionaire.
He’s an asshole, yes, but you don’t see Zuckerberg, Gates, Bezos or anyone else make the kind of big moves he does.
Big moves like losing billions on Twitter? Or producing an ugly truck that does nothing it was promised to do for twice the promised price? Or getting a government contract to build 50 THOUSAND electric vehicle chargers nationwide then firing literally everyone working on actually building them?
Big moves like founding SpaceX
Because they don’t chatter in like a sub-70 IQ Harpy wanting attention?
Musk is a fraud. He was never accepted into a PhD program. He lied about his physics degree and was awarded one while not attending after daddy gave money to the school. He doesn’t know shit about science, engineering, or literally anything except how to be an edgelord.
Dude is a fucking loser and companies succeed in spite of him.
SpaceX
What about it? Elon just owns it, nothing more. Man is a fucking moron. Just look at twitter
Which Elon has contributed nothing. He isn’t an engineer, he isn’t a scientist, he doesn’t even understand free body diagrams. He is fucking stupid.
Oh right, I forgot that funding and companies manifest solely from engineers’ desires to build things. Silly me.
Keep moving those goalposts to make Elon look good. Maybe someday he will matter.
Dude is a fraud, an Edison. Stop worshipping pieces of shit.
big moves
did you mean boner moves? makes more sense re: musk
SpaceX
the miracle of Spacex is Gwynne Shotwell* managing elon so well that he hasn’t fucked it up yet.
fair
I believe her name is Gwynne, not Gwen.
Gwen Shotwell
I stand corrected, thanks!
Oh thank you, I’ve been wondering how spaceX ever succeeded.
Ah yes. None of those others listed founded aerospace companies.
Blue Origin has yet to deliver a single gram of payload to orbit. They likely will in the next year or so, but they’re still way behind SpaceX, or even Rocket Lab in that respect.
Oh I don’t disagree with that. The person I was replying to was saying Muskrat is different than the other billionaires listed for making big moves and their example was SpaceX
Does 80 technical papers in 2.5 years seem kind of off to anyone else? That’s more than a paper every 2 weeks. Is there really time for meaningful research if you’re publishing that often? Is he advising a lot of students? If that’s the case, is he providing the attention generally needed for each one? Is his field just super different than mine?
Yes, thought the same but have a quick look at this: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=WLN3QrAAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate Seems about right? But yeah, must be advising lots of students or something. He is rarely the first, second or even third author on the papers.
Also many arxiv preprints
Ah. I hadn’t really considered preprints or workshops. If I just count the ones that seem to be published in journals or conferences, it’s 28. Still prolific. But reasonable in a 10-15 person lab.
Importance of order changes by field. In my field, at least for in lab work: first is the main lab person that worked on the project. Last is the PI, everyone that helped goes in the sandwich. I’m unsure about collaborations between labs and at that point too afraid to ask.
In acamedia you usually get your name on most papers where you help a bit. And if you’re the boss, you get your name on papers without even helping but perhaps supplying space, material, budget.
I’ve been in academia. My field required a “significant intellectual contribution” to the research and the writing, so no putting your name on papers if you just supplied space/material/budget. You can get an acknowledgement for that, not an authorship credit.
And which reviewer or publishers verifies how “significant” a contribution is beyond seeing some initials matched with tags like “visualization” or “experimental design”? That’s right, nobody. It’s not even remotely traceable who did what if you’re a reviewer.
Academia is full of fraud and people trying to secure their share of credit because in academia it’s all about names, as the twitter exchange above illustrates so profoundly. And the other driver for the sad state of academia is of course having the quantity of published papers as the most important criterion for academic success. The more papers, the more citations, the bigger your name will become. It determines your chances of getting funding and therefore your career. If you want to make a career in science you have little options but to comply with this system.
That’s kind of the point I was making.
Sorry, my irony detector must be malfunctioning.
Academia is full of fraud
Everything, everywhere is corrupt.
Everything Everywhere All Corrupt
This definitely varies by field, lab, university.
There are some people in this world who are smarter and more motivated than we are.
And then there are people who get a head start when their rich daddy gives 'em a bunch of money and they get lucky with how they invest that money but pretend to be a genius anyway.
This is a fair question. But also, we’re talking about one of the most influential minds in deep learning. If anything he’s selling himself short. He’s definitely not first author on most of them, but I would give all my limbs to work in his lab.
I’m not questioning his contributions to the field. Just being on that many papers. It just seemed like such a crazy amount of publishing.
Though deep learning has been on fire the last couple years. And the list posted included a lot of preprints and workshops, which I hadn’t really considered.
He sounds like a hack.
Yeah, even if he is advising or contributing, the way he put it sounds very disingenuous like he’s trying to inflate the number for his argument. Which MIGHT mean there likely was not many with immediately recognizable significance in that time (don’t yell at me, I have not taken the time to verify this).
Either way, the way he responded comes across as very “I’m published, you’re not, neener neener!” which is not a good look for anyone with a doctorates.
Also, genuine question, how significant was the contribution of LeNet-5 to the field of deep learning vs Neocognitron?
He could’ve just said “I have a turing award, you don’t” if he wanted to show off.
He is also called one of the godfathers of deep learning, so I’d say his contributions are very significant.
He is not first named on all of them, which means he likely advised masters and PhD/post docs on their work. It’s not uncommon.
This many papers is uncommon, but how it happened is not out of the norm.
Right, I didn’t mean to imply that the practice was uncommon, just that using it as a defense of ego so readily was eyebrow-raising. I’m no academic, but I feel like I’d lose respect for my advisor had they used the paper I worked hard on as a way to boost numbers used as personal defense in some petty squabble in a public forum.
Stephen King claims he writes 2000 words a day.
R. L. Stein supposedly wrote a new (admittedly short) novel every two weeks.
This Spanish romance novelist apparently wrote over 4000 novels in her lifetime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corín_Tellado
So sure, why not 80 technical papers in 2.5 years?
It’s easier to write that much if you are just making stuff up…
Successful writers generally don’t just make stuff up. They do plenty of research.
You can’t just compare creative writing to writing a paper.
True, but you can compare writing 4000 novels a year with being able to write 80 papers a few pages long in 2.5 and say that both are possible.
He didn’t write all those papers. He put his name on them. He also finds it worth his time to publicly argue with a pig in shit, so there’s that.
The writing of the paper is generally a trivial part of the work. Each technical paper is supposed to be a succinct summary of months or years of technical work.
Musk criticizing someone for not doing enough science is like my 9 year old criticizing me for not doing enough laundry. Except my 9 year old may have a point.
Difference being that with some mild encouragement and instruction your nine-year-old could probably do some laundry on his own. Musk do science? Nah.
In the end, he’s still in a Twitter slapfight with the biggest loser of the last decade.
We’re all human.
In a way I’m both happy and sad I live in the time when places like twitter showed that for all to see.
What an asshole.
And I’m not talking about the scientist.
college grade troll (who tragically has billions)
Bro Elon got absolutely ratio’d there when the scientist shared their papers. Like less people saw it and double the amount of likes.
That is very surprising honestly.
80 papers in like 120 weeks is incredible
That’s actually a huge red flag to me. There’s no way you can make real contributions to science with less than a week of work per paper. And at that pace you’d constantly be dealing with editing and messaging publishers rather than getting work done
Dude won a Turing award 6 years ago, is a major player in a field that is rapidly expanding, Professor at NYU, and thus is likely part of a lot of different research going on. He may not be writing up all 80 personally, but his work and name is part of them. If it was some nobody working in a slower field I would definitely be cautious about 80 papers in 5 years.
The twitter reply says since 2022, so 2 years
Nah it was 2018 (with two others). Had to check if he has two, but nope.
Ah had to come down and check thinking it was just a typo. 80 papers in 1.5 years is just straight up impossible without putting out trash.
Maybe they’re just really good at getting the bots to write their papers!
That guy’s probably one of the biggest name in deep learning. Obviously he doesn’t write all those papers himself, he supervises research, like all professors…
easier if you have interns, also i understand that most of these are preprints
(also probably depends on a field heavily)
Anyone not knowing who LeCun has no idea about anything deep learning related.
The CEO of Neuralink? I’m betting he understands rocket science & e-vehicles about as well as he does deep learning.
Capitalism: with driving seats for the most gloriously incompetent idiots & assholes. Narcissistic aspiring oligarchs? Welcome to the land of plenty.
What does you’re going soft, try harder even mean in this case? I think that’s a troll, right? Right? I mean, even one solid theory from a paper can change the course of an industry. How do people think things work? I feel dizzy reading this whole exchange
