This is because of badly organized incentives. What we should do is to implement a tax on poor people. This will make them understand that being poor is less profitable than being rich and they will be motivated to become rich.
Rather, you pay taxes on the income you use to repay the loan. Plus you pay the interest on the loan.
This basically defers the taxes to a later date and charges you interest for 'em. Which might be worthwhile, depending on how quickly and reliably your capital is growing.
> Running CI/CD pipelines can use significant amounts of energy. As much as it is tempting to have green checkmarks everywhere, running the jobs costs real money and has environmental costs.
> Unlike other giant platforms, we do not encourage you to write “heavy” pipelines and charge you for the cost later. We expect you to carefully consider the costs and benefits from your pipelines and reduce CI/CD usage to a minimum amount necessary to guarantee consistent quality for your projects.
Absolutely. The limitations of AI (namely statelessness) require us to rethink our interfaces. It seems like there's going to be a new discipline of "UX for agents" or maybe even just Agent Experience or AX.
Software that has great AX will become significantly more useful in the same way that good UX has been critical.
This doesn't fit the narrative of "Elon bad" therefore the Ford 29k vehicle steering loss recall gets two upvotes whereas the Tesla 6k vehicle dealer-installer light bar issue gets hundreds of upvotes.
I feel like LeCun has been plainly wrong about LLMs. He has been insisting that the stochastic nature of sampling tokens causes a non-zero hallucination property for any given next token such that as output length increases, this will inevitably converge towards garbage.
The reality is that while LLMs can make mistakes mid-output, those interim mistakes don't necessarily detract from the model's final output. We see a version of this all the time with agents as they make tactical mistakes but quickly backtrack and ultimately solve the root problem.
It really felt like LeCun was willing to die on this hill. He continued to argue about really pedantic things like the importance researchers, etc.
I'm glad he's gone and hopeful Meta can actually deliver real AI products for their users with better leadership.
I am a big fan of using LLMs although in my own limited way. I don't work at Meta and don't feel strongly about him leaving or staying there.
It's possible that he will turn out to be correct in the long run. From his viewpoint, the primary goal is research and any usefulness of intermediate advances is maybe (speculating) "beneath him". If this is the case, I completely understand why a corporation would want to eject him. LeCun probably sees the pretty amazing developments since ChatGPT first came out as incremental hacks. I am neutral about this aspect too. Maybe they are but the hacks have been useful to me.
Eventually this feels like the correction of a real misalignment between LeCun/FAIR and Meta. Hopefully now, they can both focus on what they are good at. I must admit that I have great sympathy for open-ended research but industry has always been fickle about it. That's where the government and universities are supposed to play a key role.
You might be better served talking to ChatGPT/Claude so it can tailor explanations based on your level of understanding. I've found that being super clear about concepts you understand well vs concepts you're unclear about makes for really effective explanations.
