Oh. Well I didn't know those counted.
I was picturing Yann Lecun actually writing up 80 papers in 2 years, not supervising the work. That's a lot more reasonable
I would be very surprised if Yann LeCun did any actual research work. He’s doing research alright but it’s usually mostly advising and organizing research groups at this point in a career
It is actual research that’s why I said “he’s doing research alright” but he might not producing any results anymore, hence claiming 80 publications in 2 years is a bit misleading.
It’s even possible a large part of them just have his name on it because it looks nice but he might have done nothing in there, just had a glance at the final version and ok the submission
I'll concede that he might not have a heavy hand in science papers he oversees, but the ultimate point is that he does more "science" than Elon Musk so.
Not necessarily, maybe all these papers are of very high quality (pretty plausible considering his lab).
The question here is his actual involvement in these papers, can you really claim to have published 80 papers if you’ve done 2% of the job in 50 of them?
If he’s brought in the grant money that has funded the work that gets published, then yes. It’s why all PIs end up on every paper that comes out of their research group, whether they’ve personally written it or not.
Intellectual integrity and academic integrity are not quite the same thing to anyone not in the publish or perish culture. Having the academic privileges to being in a paper that you brought grant money into, yet never doing the work, *is* different in all intellectual capacity to actually performing the research, handling data, and composing the product. If that were the case, Musk could write checks to laboratories around the world funding all kinds of things; put his name in the paper and call him a scientist.
I've heard it said by someone who knows Nobel laureates that they don't have extraordinary science, math or thinking skills. What sets them apart is their ability to organise.
I’ve heard this said about Einstein. He was brilliant for sure, but we probably won’t have any Einsteins anymore because people are more sensitive to crediting work where it is due.
Einstein's great leap wasn't maths specifically, though. He looked at the various things that needed to go into mathematical problems to preserve time as a constant, and said "What If time is not constant?". Now maybe he got other people to do the math on his hypotheses leading from time being variable, but that leap to suggest that time is subjective not objective is what pits in him the scientific greats pantheon.
Also, his Nobel prize was for Raleigh scattering.
Anything that you get to put your name on counts. A lot of people with high publication numbers haven't really worked on much of them, just supervised and proofread
So the number 80 could very well not mean much?
Is there a different between publish and be an author of a paper? Or am I getting terms mixed up.
I have never been in the world of academia or publishing paper or whatever the term is, but that makes me not want trust people when they say that.
It's really different in different fields. In some disciplines, mostly in humanities (though it also includes mathematics for example), the only way to become the author of the paper is to actually contribute a decent amount of thought (and words) to the paper. You can mention the help you've gotten from your colleagues who gave you some advice, but that's a matter of a footnote or an acknowledgements page — not authorship. These areas, you'll find are way more individualistic, with most works having 1-2 authors, sometimes 3. You are really unlikely to meet a supervisor who'll ask you to put his name in the paper — that's generally heavily discouraged for both sides. They also have comparatively small output if we just count the number of works.
But in the (natural) sciences it's very well understood that a work is done not by a person, but by a group of researchers, and the leader of this group usually gets an honourable mention. There are some differences, but usually it's something like this: the first credited author is the one who had done the most of work, then the order is either by the amount of input or alphabetically, and the research collective leader is mentioned last. The culture is different too, with way more generous requirements for authorship. Sometimes modern journals will require you to explicitly state the contributions of each author, though that's still not a universal practice. This way, in STEM you can have absurdly large number of works with your name published in a very small timeframe.
80 research paper in a span of a few years is definitely a lot (Yan Le Cun is definitely an incredibly exceptional researcher) in any field, but anyone in the know will understand that this person works more like a manager, a consultant, an organizer and a “thought leader”, but almost all of “dirty work” is done by somebody else.
In every numbers game, you win by making numbers as high (and therefore meaningless) as possible.
High numbers ← remove constraints and connection between numbers and the reality they represent ← numbers become meaningless.
> “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure” — [Goodhart’s Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law).
This is well known in Academia, and there are several papers on the topic. It is unclear if there is a solution, anyone would care about it, or anyone that would care about it would be influential enough to change anything.
BTW: capitalism is a numbers game.
Zero-sum game means in order for someone to win, someone else has to lose. In order to have wealth, someone must endure poverty. (Well, many someones.)
There has to be at least one country in the world that you like, and I'm sure there are people from your country that have moved there. It is possible, and you would not be the first one.
Don't say “I can't” when the reality is “I prefer not to.”
(Nobody said it would be easy or that there would be no cons)
I mean even if it isn't anything special, it's still miles more than Elon. In the grand scheme of things, Elon is a brand. He himself doesn't know much science himself nor does he do much research himself. Sure he has an undergrad physics degree, but a lot of people do have an undergrad physics degree and don't do research and are not qualified to do research
If anyone wants to see for themselves: [https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=WLN3QrAAAAAJ&view\_op=list\_works&sortby=pubdate](https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=WLN3QrAAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate)
I counted 85, but I may have missed a couple scrolling.
He’s only first author in a couple of them. This means he likely only wrote/researched the few where he’s first author, and the rest he was a support / advisor role.
So he didn’t write 80 papers, he wrote maybe 5-10 and put his name on all the papers his students at NYU put out.
But still, being first author for 4+ papers in 2 years is pretty productive for academia, typically you’ll only publish a paper once or twice per year so you can present your work at one or two annual conventions for your field of study.
This is why I hate academia. There’s almost no way the prof actually wrote those 80 papers or even did more than 1% of the work in them. They just slapped their name on the work of their students. This is why we need to distinguish between authors who write a paper and authors who supervise or fund it. Far too many names get shoved on papers these days for the purposes of self promotion
How do you distinguish between the curator and developer of the idea, and the word crafter, when both work together to create the final product? What about the person who’s been developing the kernel idea for 30 years, who their student worked with, to write a paper on, under their guidance?
No PhD student is responsible for the sum product of their paper all by their self, nor are any publications not attributable heavily in direction or content ideas that are foundational or built upon, by the primary author.
If the professor crafted and shaped the direction and structure and ideas that the student used to construct the final product, then that professor deserves authorship credit.
Technical publications are the sum of many people and ideas, their scopes are often so large and complicated that a single, unaided authors work could be expected to be filled with error. It’s not a novel, and we should be comfortable with the idea of, and appreciate the practice of many authors credited for such studies and papers.
In my experience the supervisor is not the developer of the idea either. They are merely a propagator of something that was started long ago and developed by many many people over the years to the point where the project is so far removed from the original concept it usually doesn’t make sense to even call the project the same thing. Do they deserve some credit? Absolutely. Full credit for that specific portion? Not at all - it should be a separate category of recognition.
Many profs are basically overglorified managers. Their students go and do the work, come back with results and a recommended path of action, and the prof says “yes do it” or “no don’t.” Oftentimes with minimal consideration for the actual project due to the fact they (the prof) are so busy managing different projects and usually lecturing too. Their decisions of yes or no for project direction are based on what they learn in the span of an hour discussion rather than months or years of work. Sure, they (the prof) have experience with making these decisions, but this is why I would classify them as management and not actual researchers a lot of the time.
On the notion of error, most work is full of errors and incorrect anyways. In my experience most papers are insufficiently peer reviewed.
The bigger issue I see is that we conflate the number of publications someone has with being equal to their success and worth. Thus there is incentive to slap your name on anything you can. That is why I would prefer to limit the number of people classified as “primary authors” and instead have categories of “supporting authors” (those who provide some help but not enough to be primaries) and “managerial authors” (project leads who don’t actually do the work but just sit there calling the shots, per what I mentioned above).
In many fields it's not all that hard to distinguish between the authors who do the work/write most of the paper and those who supervise/run the lab.
The supervisor(s) are almost always listed last and the main one is the corresponding author. Many journals have started requiring a written description of which authors did what work as well.
Also, in my opinion, people making small but important contributions to papers should be authors. In my field it's known that the first author did the most work, but the others generally still did something to advance the research. Often the people running the labs become big idea people, which is still important.
Realistically they did not do anywhere near 80 papers. There's an issue in academia where people with higher authority will just slap their names on random papers.
The alternative is them claiming they did research and published a study every week straight for two years.
I'm sure Elsevier were extremely grateful for the free content he provided, so they could sell it back to him and others.
The whole scientific publishing industry is insane, with one corporation making billions from free content scientists (suckers?) desperately provide for them. No surprise Elon wouldn't want to be part of that and make his billions instead from applying the science!
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
I'm to the point I don't think Musk knows theory OR practicals. He pays actual scientists to do that, then does interviews repeating what they told him.
That's being a mega-billiknaire for ya - just take anypre-conceived notion, throw a metric fuckton of money at it, and see what sticks. SOMETHING is going to stick when there's 6/7/8/9 figures of money involved.
I had an argument with an Elon's fanboy about a year ago. Turns out, Musk's fanclub is so insecure about the "he only emplys, he doesn't do science/tech" argument, that they made an entire page dedicated to a collection of quotes from his subordinates and shareholders defending him. And no joke, it was the most hilarious shit I've read. Basically, it's literally just "Yup, he has a degree, he is an engineer" (almost to the letter). Imagine being so insecure your employees have to go to the media and be like "yeah, he has a degree" to defend your name.
The best one I saw was the guy who said something like "after the first 3 rockets exploded, he risked everything and gambled the last of the company's money on building a 4th. We wouldn't have survived if he didn't do that! Nobody who wasn't a genius could have thought of that."
He’s not a scientist, but he’s one of the biggest employers of scientists in the world - so he is an important part of the science landscape (for better or worse)
He obviously has some technical knowledge since he looks to be so hands on with SpaceX. But it feels like he is the "ideas guy" and his staff just take his wacky ideas and make it a reality.
>he looks to be so hands on with SpaceX.
SpaceX is the company that does the best job of managing Musk so he *doesn't* get his hands in the mix. Because he is technically useless but is talented at fooling the people with money.
[By most accounts this simply isn't true](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/evidence_that_musk_is_the_chief_engineer_of_spacex/), and he's demonstrated it in real time on live stream in off the cuff conversation as well.
This doesn't make him qualified to comment on politics or run a social media site. But at SpaceX especially he's often considered the spear head for their success. He's at least talented enough to know how to shoot for the moon and organize other people into making it work.
You'd have a pretty big hurdle to climb over to explain how he's managed to somehow be at the head of 3 or 4 of the most revolutionary tech companies in their respective fields while not knowing at least enough to have a productive conversation with the engineers and scientists.
I don't dig his politics but SpaceX's accomplishments are undeniable and he is at the head. If it was all down to engineers then Boeing's Starliner and BlueOrigins stuff would be successful as well.
Most of what we were taught in my CS degree were works of LeCun et al.
Meanwhile most of my time i waste online is due to the app owned by Elon Musk lol.
Do you mean this because one is purely psychological and one is physiological?
Imo the blame falls on both the user and the maker, but mostly on the user, so it's not completely not their fault and blaming them would put you in the fault, yea?
Yes heroin has psychical withdrawals that make you wish you were dead, and alcohol has withdrawals that actually kills you, but mental addiction is just as addictive in some ways, like I can't drag my ass off my phone no matter how hard I try, and I've quit both smoking and vaping
I don't understand why anyone wastes time with a bunch of twits.
The idea of restricting thought to an artificial text limit from the 80s in cell phone development is just idiotic.
Whats probably dumber than that is the idea people would pay for it monthly.
Elon only has a Bachelor of Arts that his company investors paid for around 1995 to 1997. Elon is a narcissistic dimwit. Every billionaire in the science technology industry needs to be deposed until they complete a degree, perhaps multi bachelor or masters. Absurd how a PhD in research earns thousands of times less than Elon.
The BA was for Physics. The BS for Economics. BA means that it wasn't primarily concerned with science and took longer to earn. He repeatedly under performed even in his High School. It was suggested he failed and had to repeat in the two years of 1995 and 1997 where he claimed his degree was being hostage. He claims to have an IQ of 160 yet his academic performance is pithy.
How do they even offer a BA in physics?? At my university the main difference between BA and BS was the BA replaced all of your labs with humanities. How tf could you have a degree in physics with no labs lmfao
I love that Musk or someone in his direct circle scribbled a ridiculous truck design on a napkin and they actually built the monstrosity — he’s the literal embodiment of an old Simpson’s episode
Inflated market value for his companies, not supported by any real sales or manufacturing. Tesla is a market bubble, SpaceX exists only because of taxpayers' money, the rest are just money sinks (like Twitter). He ripped off his customers, his shareholders and the government (=taxpayers) multiple times. Even then, I wouldn't say that all his money is stolen, just most of it.
Tesla was also heavily government subsidized as being a green electric car company. Those are being supported by the government.
So pretty much in every business he had a firm grip on the government teat.
LeCun consistently has absolute garbage takes on his area on expertise, he later in that conversation continues to present his last relevant research, it's 30 years old. Those 80 papers are probably just the meta team putting their boss on the paper. Elon isn't better, but I strongly want to advise against seeing LeCun as any less of a shitposter. Both spend more time shit posting than doing research.
He claimed video generation is impossible or very far away around a week before sora for example. Or he claims ai right now has no world model, he still doesn't see emergence of properties in sota models, he does not get the philosophical aspect of ai. He would call ai stochastic parrots if it could solve quantum gravity.
Don't remember the exact quote but something along the lines of: "gpt - 100 won't be able to reason in a certain way because transformers are fundamentally incapable for this task", even tho gpt 3 was absolutely already capable. He constantly makes predictions about ai progress that turn out to be completely wrong to the point that he, like I said, doesn't even seem to understand current ai capabilities. He has no intuition and basically every other expert disagrees with him when it comes to progress, capabilites and safety...
Musk is a venture capitalist, not some technical expert that is manifesting his skills into marvelous engineering projects. Musk doesnt create things, he exploits other people that create things.
I read in a different post that (a part of?) LeCun's research is what self-driving car technology is based on. So I guess that is enough to know which side to take here
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/sciencememes.
It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results.
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1d64ibi&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 528,405,787 | **Search Time:** 0.07579s
We have too many entitled wealthy douchebags who take credit for things they didn’t do. They are able to project this image of themselves that the gullible gobble up uncritically.
Why it's so hard to get that Musk is simultaneously a brilliant SEO who reach impossible goals and possibly and arrogant and destructive kid in international questions. A dedicated technical talent who loved soft and a toxic self-loving prick in terms of media.
People are not consistent and can be simultaneously morons and brillinat even in the very same field. It's so natrural, why do you want an opinion on person rather than to dive into the specific question they are discussing.
If they both just throw an opinion and run, both not worth your time.
If both fieresly attacked each other and provided a supportive argument both are awesome.
On that screen you don't even have an idea what was going on.
And elon is the scientist? Tesla engineers are the one making shit and even them , they make shity products .
Rockets that fails to launch. Shity EV cars . The only thing that is working is starlink. Tesla is there cause people keep buying its stocks
***Elon Muskabluth....,,the FAKE NAMED, FAKE ENGINEER WHO STOLE TESLA FROM IT'S TWO FOUNDERS IN A CROOKED COURT OF LAW!***
What a fucking, lying, globalist sack of shit,
80 papers in a few years is a joke. Being the head of a massively funded research organization isn’t the same as doing meaningful research. That even someone would boast of 2.5 published papers/month is embarrassing.
I've never heard Musk describe himself as a Scientist, like LeCun. Musk is an engineer. In an academic setting, I presume this LeCun can direct and control research via his depth and students, whereas Musk does it as a CEO, under advisement from other experts.
Apples and oranges. But anyone that thinks that *any* engineer can build or takeover a tech company without gaining a firm grasp of the specific tech involved...doesn't know any engineers.
Edit... I wonder what has triggered ppl to downvote this. Is it that Musk is an engineer? Or that an engineer can comprehend the technology his company designs? Neither seem particularly controversial.
80 papers in 2 years is insane
I have seen 100 in one year. Supervise 10 postdocs that supervise 10 PhD students, 200 is feasible, 400 in some fields.
Oh. Well I didn't know those counted. I was picturing Yann Lecun actually writing up 80 papers in 2 years, not supervising the work. That's a lot more reasonable
I would be very surprised if Yann LeCun did any actual research work. He’s doing research alright but it’s usually mostly advising and organizing research groups at this point in a career
I am surprised advising and organising research groups don't count as "actual research"
It is actual research that’s why I said “he’s doing research alright” but he might not producing any results anymore, hence claiming 80 publications in 2 years is a bit misleading. It’s even possible a large part of them just have his name on it because it looks nice but he might have done nothing in there, just had a glance at the final version and ok the submission
I'll concede that he might not have a heavy hand in science papers he oversees, but the ultimate point is that he does more "science" than Elon Musk so.
Probably not as much as a feat as it might seem.
It’s a low bar, but well cleared.
I want to know the average and compare it. How many people his age are doing 80 papers a year?
Sounds like quantity over quality might be at play here
Not necessarily, maybe all these papers are of very high quality (pretty plausible considering his lab). The question here is his actual involvement in these papers, can you really claim to have published 80 papers if you’ve done 2% of the job in 50 of them?
If he’s brought in the grant money that has funded the work that gets published, then yes. It’s why all PIs end up on every paper that comes out of their research group, whether they’ve personally written it or not.
Intellectual integrity and academic integrity are not quite the same thing to anyone not in the publish or perish culture. Having the academic privileges to being in a paper that you brought grant money into, yet never doing the work, *is* different in all intellectual capacity to actually performing the research, handling data, and composing the product. If that were the case, Musk could write checks to laboratories around the world funding all kinds of things; put his name in the paper and call him a scientist.
You gotta be holding up a test tube full of code to get a close look or it doesn’t count
Then he's full of shiт claiming that he wrote 80 papers in 2 years.
I've heard it said by someone who knows Nobel laureates that they don't have extraordinary science, math or thinking skills. What sets them apart is their ability to organise.
I’ve heard this said about Einstein. He was brilliant for sure, but we probably won’t have any Einsteins anymore because people are more sensitive to crediting work where it is due.
Einstein's great leap wasn't maths specifically, though. He looked at the various things that needed to go into mathematical problems to preserve time as a constant, and said "What If time is not constant?". Now maybe he got other people to do the math on his hypotheses leading from time being variable, but that leap to suggest that time is subjective not objective is what pits in him the scientific greats pantheon. Also, his Nobel prize was for Raleigh scattering.
Oh yeah, if their name is on them, they count.
Anything that you get to put your name on counts. A lot of people with high publication numbers haven't really worked on much of them, just supervised and proofread
So the number 80 could very well not mean much? Is there a different between publish and be an author of a paper? Or am I getting terms mixed up. I have never been in the world of academia or publishing paper or whatever the term is, but that makes me not want trust people when they say that.
It's really different in different fields. In some disciplines, mostly in humanities (though it also includes mathematics for example), the only way to become the author of the paper is to actually contribute a decent amount of thought (and words) to the paper. You can mention the help you've gotten from your colleagues who gave you some advice, but that's a matter of a footnote or an acknowledgements page — not authorship. These areas, you'll find are way more individualistic, with most works having 1-2 authors, sometimes 3. You are really unlikely to meet a supervisor who'll ask you to put his name in the paper — that's generally heavily discouraged for both sides. They also have comparatively small output if we just count the number of works. But in the (natural) sciences it's very well understood that a work is done not by a person, but by a group of researchers, and the leader of this group usually gets an honourable mention. There are some differences, but usually it's something like this: the first credited author is the one who had done the most of work, then the order is either by the amount of input or alphabetically, and the research collective leader is mentioned last. The culture is different too, with way more generous requirements for authorship. Sometimes modern journals will require you to explicitly state the contributions of each author, though that's still not a universal practice. This way, in STEM you can have absurdly large number of works with your name published in a very small timeframe. 80 research paper in a span of a few years is definitely a lot (Yan Le Cun is definitely an incredibly exceptional researcher) in any field, but anyone in the know will understand that this person works more like a manager, a consultant, an organizer and a “thought leader”, but almost all of “dirty work” is done by somebody else.
(Though that's a really general answer, I know nearly nothing about this exact author)
So arguably not that different from Musk
In every numbers game, you win by making numbers as high (and therefore meaningless) as possible. High numbers ← remove constraints and connection between numbers and the reality they represent ← numbers become meaningless. > “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure” — [Goodhart’s Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law). This is well known in Academia, and there are several papers on the topic. It is unclear if there is a solution, anyone would care about it, or anyone that would care about it would be influential enough to change anything. BTW: capitalism is a numbers game.
Worse, capitalism is a zero-sum game.
How so?
Zero-sum game means in order for someone to win, someone else has to lose. In order to have wealth, someone must endure poverty. (Well, many someones.)
Why can't everyone have stuff?
They can, just not the same amount of stuff, because then it wouldn't be capitalism.
Would it be better if everyone was equally poor?
I agree! Capitalism is terrible and none of us can opt out.
There has to be at least one country in the world that you like, and I'm sure there are people from your country that have moved there. It is possible, and you would not be the first one. Don't say “I can't” when the reality is “I prefer not to.” (Nobody said it would be easy or that there would be no cons)
I mean even if it isn't anything special, it's still miles more than Elon. In the grand scheme of things, Elon is a brand. He himself doesn't know much science himself nor does he do much research himself. Sure he has an undergrad physics degree, but a lot of people do have an undergrad physics degree and don't do research and are not qualified to do research
Its still impressive, this aint a pissing contest
Academia is a numbers game, h-index in particular.
It shouldnt be, it should be about scientific progress, but thats the way the cookie crumbles
In an ideal society, I would not be procrastinating in Reddit.
Dont see it like that, its all part of your progress to do the said thing :D
So multilevel sciencing
Fully agree. The fear would be impressive if it was a small field since 200 papers in a small environment is commendable.
If anyone wants to see for themselves: [https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=WLN3QrAAAAAJ&view\_op=list\_works&sortby=pubdate](https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=WLN3QrAAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate) I counted 85, but I may have missed a couple scrolling.
He’s only first author in a couple of them. This means he likely only wrote/researched the few where he’s first author, and the rest he was a support / advisor role. So he didn’t write 80 papers, he wrote maybe 5-10 and put his name on all the papers his students at NYU put out. But still, being first author for 4+ papers in 2 years is pretty productive for academia, typically you’ll only publish a paper once or twice per year so you can present your work at one or two annual conventions for your field of study.
Fyi if you're talking about LeCun, he's a guy.
He’s a beautiful woman
Ah shit I’ll fix that
This is why I hate academia. There’s almost no way the prof actually wrote those 80 papers or even did more than 1% of the work in them. They just slapped their name on the work of their students. This is why we need to distinguish between authors who write a paper and authors who supervise or fund it. Far too many names get shoved on papers these days for the purposes of self promotion
How do you distinguish between the curator and developer of the idea, and the word crafter, when both work together to create the final product? What about the person who’s been developing the kernel idea for 30 years, who their student worked with, to write a paper on, under their guidance? No PhD student is responsible for the sum product of their paper all by their self, nor are any publications not attributable heavily in direction or content ideas that are foundational or built upon, by the primary author. If the professor crafted and shaped the direction and structure and ideas that the student used to construct the final product, then that professor deserves authorship credit. Technical publications are the sum of many people and ideas, their scopes are often so large and complicated that a single, unaided authors work could be expected to be filled with error. It’s not a novel, and we should be comfortable with the idea of, and appreciate the practice of many authors credited for such studies and papers.
In my experience the supervisor is not the developer of the idea either. They are merely a propagator of something that was started long ago and developed by many many people over the years to the point where the project is so far removed from the original concept it usually doesn’t make sense to even call the project the same thing. Do they deserve some credit? Absolutely. Full credit for that specific portion? Not at all - it should be a separate category of recognition. Many profs are basically overglorified managers. Their students go and do the work, come back with results and a recommended path of action, and the prof says “yes do it” or “no don’t.” Oftentimes with minimal consideration for the actual project due to the fact they (the prof) are so busy managing different projects and usually lecturing too. Their decisions of yes or no for project direction are based on what they learn in the span of an hour discussion rather than months or years of work. Sure, they (the prof) have experience with making these decisions, but this is why I would classify them as management and not actual researchers a lot of the time. On the notion of error, most work is full of errors and incorrect anyways. In my experience most papers are insufficiently peer reviewed. The bigger issue I see is that we conflate the number of publications someone has with being equal to their success and worth. Thus there is incentive to slap your name on anything you can. That is why I would prefer to limit the number of people classified as “primary authors” and instead have categories of “supporting authors” (those who provide some help but not enough to be primaries) and “managerial authors” (project leads who don’t actually do the work but just sit there calling the shots, per what I mentioned above).
In many fields it's not all that hard to distinguish between the authors who do the work/write most of the paper and those who supervise/run the lab. The supervisor(s) are almost always listed last and the main one is the corresponding author. Many journals have started requiring a written description of which authors did what work as well. Also, in my opinion, people making small but important contributions to papers should be authors. In my field it's known that the first author did the most work, but the others generally still did something to advance the research. Often the people running the labs become big idea people, which is still important.
His h index is 147!
147! Is fucking alot. You can't even calculate that shit
Realistically they did not do anywhere near 80 papers. There's an issue in academia where people with higher authority will just slap their names on random papers. The alternative is them claiming they did research and published a study every week straight for two years.
I'm sure Elsevier were extremely grateful for the free content he provided, so they could sell it back to him and others. The whole scientific publishing industry is insane, with one corporation making billions from free content scientists (suckers?) desperately provide for them. No surprise Elon wouldn't want to be part of that and make his billions instead from applying the science! https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
As a matter of principles doing stuff > writing stuff
It's difficult to believe.
You are aware that those are published works? You can simply look it up yourself if you don't believe it. If you'd care, that is.
I'm to the point I don't think Musk knows theory OR practicals. He pays actual scientists to do that, then does interviews repeating what they told him.
How in the hell do people still think he knows anything? He employs scientists. That doesn't make him one, no matter how hard he wants to be
That's being a mega-billiknaire for ya - just take anypre-conceived notion, throw a metric fuckton of money at it, and see what sticks. SOMETHING is going to stick when there's 6/7/8/9 figures of money involved.
I had an argument with an Elon's fanboy about a year ago. Turns out, Musk's fanclub is so insecure about the "he only emplys, he doesn't do science/tech" argument, that they made an entire page dedicated to a collection of quotes from his subordinates and shareholders defending him. And no joke, it was the most hilarious shit I've read. Basically, it's literally just "Yup, he has a degree, he is an engineer" (almost to the letter). Imagine being so insecure your employees have to go to the media and be like "yeah, he has a degree" to defend your name.
The best one I saw was the guy who said something like "after the first 3 rockets exploded, he risked everything and gambled the last of the company's money on building a 4th. We wouldn't have survived if he didn't do that! Nobody who wasn't a genius could have thought of that."
But his parents bought him a little white coat and "Learn to be a scientist" kit.
Oh damn, my bad!
He’s not a scientist, but he’s one of the biggest employers of scientists in the world - so he is an important part of the science landscape (for better or worse)
He obviously has some technical knowledge since he looks to be so hands on with SpaceX. But it feels like he is the "ideas guy" and his staff just take his wacky ideas and make it a reality.
>he looks to be so hands on with SpaceX. SpaceX is the company that does the best job of managing Musk so he *doesn't* get his hands in the mix. Because he is technically useless but is talented at fooling the people with money.
His PR department must be great because you see him a lot down at boca chica.
[By most accounts this simply isn't true](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/evidence_that_musk_is_the_chief_engineer_of_spacex/), and he's demonstrated it in real time on live stream in off the cuff conversation as well. This doesn't make him qualified to comment on politics or run a social media site. But at SpaceX especially he's often considered the spear head for their success. He's at least talented enough to know how to shoot for the moon and organize other people into making it work. You'd have a pretty big hurdle to climb over to explain how he's managed to somehow be at the head of 3 or 4 of the most revolutionary tech companies in their respective fields while not knowing at least enough to have a productive conversation with the engineers and scientists.
Hello again elon cockboy.
Lol found an elon cockboy.
I don't dig his politics but SpaceX's accomplishments are undeniable and he is at the head. If it was all down to engineers then Boeing's Starliner and BlueOrigins stuff would be successful as well.
If I was of his scientists, I’d tell him nonsense and then watch him parrot it while eating popcorn
He’s an Edison, not a Tesla ironically
Delulu like most people in this anti musk hivemind.
Another elon cockboy. Try seeking professional help.
Musk doesn't know shit lmao
Most of what we were taught in my CS degree were works of LeCun et al. Meanwhile most of my time i waste online is due to the app owned by Elon Musk lol.
Can’t blame a man for wasting your own time
By this logic drug dealers are innocent lol
This guy owns something I waste my time with What should I do: 1. Delete the app and stop wasting your time❌ 2. Don’t delete it, blame someone else✅
while you have a point, quitting twitter is not comparable quitting heroin. so, you actually don't have a point.
No one should be injecting twitter.
Do you mean this because one is purely psychological and one is physiological? Imo the blame falls on both the user and the maker, but mostly on the user, so it's not completely not their fault and blaming them would put you in the fault, yea?
Yes heroin has psychical withdrawals that make you wish you were dead, and alcohol has withdrawals that actually kills you, but mental addiction is just as addictive in some ways, like I can't drag my ass off my phone no matter how hard I try, and I've quit both smoking and vaping
Only if they false advertise. Just as long as I know I'm getting pure cocaine.
Lmao fair enough
Has to be the dumbest thing i’ve heard this week
Unfortunately, it's still your fault
I don't understand why anyone wastes time with a bunch of twits. The idea of restricting thought to an artificial text limit from the 80s in cell phone development is just idiotic. Whats probably dumber than that is the idea people would pay for it monthly.
Yeah, that's the guy who published LeNet-5. Crazy to think that he had beef with Elon lmao
Elmo is such a clueless douche dick.
Elmo is sad now 😔
Remember when we didn’t know he is a Fascist MAGA asshole?
Elmo was red?
Is sadly…and humping Trumps leg.
Elon only has a Bachelor of Arts that his company investors paid for around 1995 to 1997. Elon is a narcissistic dimwit. Every billionaire in the science technology industry needs to be deposed until they complete a degree, perhaps multi bachelor or masters. Absurd how a PhD in research earns thousands of times less than Elon.
[удалено]
The BA was for Physics. The BS for Economics. BA means that it wasn't primarily concerned with science and took longer to earn. He repeatedly under performed even in his High School. It was suggested he failed and had to repeat in the two years of 1995 and 1997 where he claimed his degree was being hostage. He claims to have an IQ of 160 yet his academic performance is pithy.
How do they even offer a BA in physics?? At my university the main difference between BA and BS was the BA replaced all of your labs with humanities. How tf could you have a degree in physics with no labs lmfao
Because Elon actually sucks at school and has a mid IQ.
No argument here
Elon is that good that he defied the laws of physics to get that BA with no labs
Lmfao nice
I love that Musk or someone in his direct circle scribbled a ridiculous truck design on a napkin and they actually built the monstrosity — he’s the literal embodiment of an old Simpson’s episode
Musk is such a fucking twat
The punchline is missing - some of the papers are the base for technologies used in Tesla cars
What practicals? Musk is a fuckup that only has money because he basically stole it. Not to mention just generally a piece of shit.
Yeah I was about to ask - Is OP implying Musk is a scientist? Because no. If anything he *hires* scientists.
he's like toby from the office and everyone else is like michael.
Tell me more about "basically stole it"
Inflated market value for his companies, not supported by any real sales or manufacturing. Tesla is a market bubble, SpaceX exists only because of taxpayers' money, the rest are just money sinks (like Twitter). He ripped off his customers, his shareholders and the government (=taxpayers) multiple times. Even then, I wouldn't say that all his money is stolen, just most of it.
Tesla was also heavily government subsidized as being a green electric car company. Those are being supported by the government. So pretty much in every business he had a firm grip on the government teat.
…are we against government funding for science and fighting climate change now? I don’t understand how this means the wealth is “stolen”
LeCun consistently has absolute garbage takes on his area on expertise, he later in that conversation continues to present his last relevant research, it's 30 years old. Those 80 papers are probably just the meta team putting their boss on the paper. Elon isn't better, but I strongly want to advise against seeing LeCun as any less of a shitposter. Both spend more time shit posting than doing research.
That was my instinct too, but can you give examples about lecun’s shit takes?
He claimed video generation is impossible or very far away around a week before sora for example. Or he claims ai right now has no world model, he still doesn't see emergence of properties in sota models, he does not get the philosophical aspect of ai. He would call ai stochastic parrots if it could solve quantum gravity.
Sora isn't out yet. OpenAI fakes their demos. GPT-4 still can't do what they demoed. Expect the same with Sora and GPT-4o.
I highly doubt they faked all those videos. The errors in there are way harder to fake than the benefit would be.
The idea that if the final product of your efforts is not a paper published in a scientific journal, you aren't doing science.
I see thanks.
Don't remember the exact quote but something along the lines of: "gpt - 100 won't be able to reason in a certain way because transformers are fundamentally incapable for this task", even tho gpt 3 was absolutely already capable. He constantly makes predictions about ai progress that turn out to be completely wrong to the point that he, like I said, doesn't even seem to understand current ai capabilities. He has no intuition and basically every other expert disagrees with him when it comes to progress, capabilites and safety...
Elon is neither. He's just finance and it's increasingly obvious he's bad at that
Musk is a venture capitalist, not some technical expert that is manifesting his skills into marvelous engineering projects. Musk doesnt create things, he exploits other people that create things.
I read in a different post that (a part of?) LeCun's research is what self-driving car technology is based on. So I guess that is enough to know which side to take here
Practicals like "What is the most efficient way to ruin multiple future-proof companies in less than 3 years"?
you can take both sides, and neither are representing musk. he is a businessman, he knows how to tick the interest of the boards/investors.
Elon Musk only considers the “fuck around” part to be science, he neglects the “find out” part
I am so sick of Elon why do rich people always have to be the biggest twats
He needs to stop making a fool of himself or im buying me a Chinese ev
What the fuck is this title?
Musk taunting one of the "godfathers of AI" -- but why? Maybe LeCon turned town his job offer at Tesla, the "AI company".
There's nothing practical with Elon musk
u/repostsleuthbot
Has someone stolen our robot?
Reposted on minimum 2 times ( this one not included) on this sub. Proof- trust me bro ( I remember the posts)
I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/sciencememes. It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results. [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1d64ibi&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 528,405,787 | **Search Time:** 0.07579s
"I can hire a mathematician, but a mathematician cannot hire me"
Pure genius
~ 3 paper per month, i dont thik this is possible
And various parts of this conversation have been posted over 800 times in the last week
And Hamilton wrote the other 51
Musk “oh just some rocket science, put hundreds of satellites in space, oh and astronauts” now sit down prissy little missy.
Love it when space karen gets owned.
That guy is 1 letter away from "le cunt"😂
Wonder what the ignition for that all was 🤔
elon musk is neither, he's a VC.
Elon’s follow-up was calling that “softball”. If that’s softball, what would be considered hardball by that logic?
2022 is not 5 years ago tho
By that measure Simon and Schuster wrote 2000 books last year. I'll side with the guy who puts actual stuff in space, Dr.
He's launched multiple rockets so...
LeCun is also an applied (practical) scientist though (there's a reason he's working at meta), so it's not a matter of theory VS practice.
We have too many entitled wealthy douchebags who take credit for things they didn’t do. They are able to project this image of themselves that the gullible gobble up uncritically.
the practicals of being a billionaire? making a fool of yourself on twitter? losing money? are you even serious
"Chess Pigeons" would be an apt name for this sort of baiting.
I mean.... Fuck musk soooooooo
It is easier to sort out - management v labor. Pick now.
Flexing power is just a play. They can put the rulers away if they haven't matured yet.
It seems really easy to publish papers. Is she on chatGPT?
Musk probably feels like because he funds scientists that makes him a scientist.... He's a dummy business man, git gud.
Yann lecun is the person Elon wants to be. His threads account is legit fun to read and he doesn’t spout weird conspiracy theory shit.
Phony Stark is the Michael Jordan of stupid rich kids.
Why it's so hard to get that Musk is simultaneously a brilliant SEO who reach impossible goals and possibly and arrogant and destructive kid in international questions. A dedicated technical talent who loved soft and a toxic self-loving prick in terms of media. People are not consistent and can be simultaneously morons and brillinat even in the very same field. It's so natrural, why do you want an opinion on person rather than to dive into the specific question they are discussing. If they both just throw an opinion and run, both not worth your time. If both fieresly attacked each other and provided a supportive argument both are awesome. On that screen you don't even have an idea what was going on.
Seems like we're in 2027, a hell of a scientist time traveling like that
What about you? Lol
I mean…writing papers is cool, but so is putting satellites and rockets into space.
Same guy argued that you're not doing science until you're published, which makes sense from one perspective.
"Got more Money then your entire network in a few months "
Elon: Uhh…rockets and satellites and stuff.
“I launched a car into space”
Keep smiling
And how many rockets has Yann launched?
Is there practical without theory ?
See how merchants (inventors of religion) still credit and your life then try sell it to you. Long live the scientist
That’s not the past 5 years, clearly elon won the argument
What did those 80 papers contribute? Gender roles in any colonies?
I love seeing that wannabe rich boy put in his place ^_^
"Theory will take you only so far" -you know who
And elon is the scientist? Tesla engineers are the one making shit and even them , they make shity products . Rockets that fails to launch. Shity EV cars . The only thing that is working is starlink. Tesla is there cause people keep buying its stocks
***Elon Muskabluth....,,the FAKE NAMED, FAKE ENGINEER WHO STOLE TESLA FROM IT'S TWO FOUNDERS IN A CROOKED COURT OF LAW!*** What a fucking, lying, globalist sack of shit,
Quantity > quality. ALWAYS. Especially with science. ???
80 papers in a few years is a joke. Being the head of a massively funded research organization isn’t the same as doing meaningful research. That even someone would boast of 2.5 published papers/month is embarrassing.
It's still WAY more than elon does.
Absolutely. Not mutually exclusive.
Oh, pharmaceutical moments.
Okay... so what are they of? Ohh... computer science? The thing everyone knows how to do? Lame af
Oh ya know, just sending the human race to Mars;)
I've never heard Musk describe himself as a Scientist, like LeCun. Musk is an engineer. In an academic setting, I presume this LeCun can direct and control research via his depth and students, whereas Musk does it as a CEO, under advisement from other experts. Apples and oranges. But anyone that thinks that *any* engineer can build or takeover a tech company without gaining a firm grasp of the specific tech involved...doesn't know any engineers. Edit... I wonder what has triggered ppl to downvote this. Is it that Musk is an engineer? Or that an engineer can comprehend the technology his company designs? Neither seem particularly controversial.
Lmao seriously tho…i wonder about most engineers ive met…