I am no one. I have greatest respect for all Turing award winners.
But one thing I am wary is that LeCun - while special and excellent - is just as many others, working at a place where "AI" is already used to "engage people up" - it is just the nature of the business if you are in the engagement business. And your "AI" will gladly help you in all kind of subtle ways. What is also nice is that it's uncharted territory now, so you can freely roam - and engage the heck out of your audience.
And LeCun is just - as a "neutral" scientist - just doing his part.
IDK, I get it. Grad school sucks. Post-docs suck. Pre-tenure sucks. Post-tenure isn't any better. For that entire period of time you are working on de facto fixed term contracts. Which is extremely uncommon among salaried engineers, and those that take these sorts of contingent employment contracts are typically paid quite well. It's like 10-15 years of low pay, "will I have a job next year?" stress, and moving your family around all the time (or, more commonly, just not starting a family).
And not even for good pay. These days, even after a decade or more of experience, you're making less than your undergrads. Half as much or even less in some cases.
So, your undergrad once-peers start retiring -- or at least thinking about it -- around the time that you're finally transitioning from de facto fixed-term positions to something resembling a normal employment contract, but, again, for a third to a fifth of what you'd be making in industry at that point in your career.
So, yeah, people say fuck it and cash in on influence/engagement/reputation where they can. The only real alternative is the public sector paying researchers better, but that's never going to happen.
> It's like 10-15 years of low pay, "will I have a job next year?" stress, and moving your family around all the time (or, more commonly, just not starting a family).
While true for many/most PhDs going the academic route, I somehow don't think this held true for Yann LeCun. None of this answers the question of "Why FB?" - he could easily make a slightly smaller boatload of money if he chose to go somewhere else.
IMO it's similar to why Hinton works for Google - this gives him huge resources (data, compute, money to pay researchers) to do research with, unlike anything to be found in academia. Perhaps this is a naive view, but this is a guy who spent decades pushing for a direction in AI that was not popular but which he really believed in, so it seems natural he would want to accept resources to further research in that direction. Of course, he's also been public about thinking Facebook does more good than bad for the world, in his view.
Also, TBH I doubt he has much to do with the AI used for engagement optimization, his specialty is in other topics and he seems to be focused on the work of Facebook AI Research (which openly engages with academia and so on). And to be fair he is also still a professor at NYU and has students there.
Because Facebook makes the most money, and probably offered him the most.
Same reason why back in the day, a lot of people got electrical engineering degrees but went into software development or finance. The skills were transferable, and the pay was a lot higher.
My problem is, I'm kind of anti-capitalist, to make it short. Labor and capital and not just production factors, but they constitute a power relationship (and often a quite asymmetric one).
I cannot bring myself to "invest" in something or believe that "my money works for me" - that's delusional. Money does not "work".
People get all upset about the stance, but all I am saying is that everyone wants to profit off someone else' work and I do not think that's the best way forward. Especially not in an era, where labor overall will decrease in value (we will continue to automate more and more) - which just means poverty for anyone w/o capital (it's that simple).
Edit: Also, I'm not speaking as a "loser" of this system - but on track to the first million - it's just that I can imagine another world and so many people take the "capitalist framework" as a given - which it just not is. There are ways to think about society in a more nuanced way, without losing all the competitive niceties of capitalism.
You have an explicit choice to either not invest or invest. If you spend all your money instead of investing it, you're still making somebody work for you- they're immediately being made (although I'd disagree with this portrayal that it's involuntary, you may not) to serve you a plate of lunch or manufacture a new car for you.
Your attitude seems to be financially masochistic to me and possibly a way to justify your own actions.
So if you don't invest, do you just save money in a savings account? Over a 50 year career S&P Index Fund vs stuff in a savings account is the different between... having 20k a year to pull from savings, vs having 100k a year to pull from investments. It's a pretty stark portfolio difference.
Ironically if you put the money in a savings account, someone much richer than you is going to be investing it on your behalf and taking the lion's share of the interest that you're leaving on the table.
Imagine a community of elderly people who are physically incapable of cutting their lawn on a weekly basis.
A neighbor sees their predicament and thinks if he could only buy a lawn tractor he could help them out. But he doesn’t have the money.
So he borrows the money at 5% interest, buys the tractor and offers to cut their lawns at a low rate. He uses the money he makes from his customers to pay the payments on the tractor and even reinvests some of that to buy a truck with a plow so he can plow their driveways when it snows.
He’s happy, his customers are happy, the bank that loaned him the money is happy. It seems like putting “money to work” in this way seems like a good thing to me but maybe I’m missing something.
Unless your opposition to capitalism is based on idealistic notions of morality, you have to accept that it is the predominant mode of production that society involuntarily finds itself in. Marx was financed by Engels, a factory owner and capitalist, and if he had refused to do so on principle, he would have probably never gotten around to write any of his theory (regardless of what one things of it).
Money disassociates social relations under capitalism. You fear wanting to pay people to work for you, but they too just work for the money. There is nothing ethical or unethical about that, it is just how the structure of capitalism influences the production and reproduction of society.
You might want to study theory or history, engage in labour actions, teach, help the needy, etc. but the system doesn't privilege anyone unconditionally. To have the opportunities to do what you find important, you need the resources: education, money and also time.
So it is up to you, to live by the standards of an ideal society or to exploit the current circumstances as best you can.
Yes, true - many societies are using this configuration for hundreds of years.
My issue is not based on morality, but on the fact that we as humans are capable of reflecting on our existence. And that each of our lives is determined by a large amount of luck.
I could be born smart, ill, rich, poor and so on. Does some accidental property give me more rights and opportunities than others? My western net worth would allow me to retire right now in many parts of the world - but did I earn this privilege? Of course not, it was pure accident.
My issue is that people take a huge amount of lucky accidents as a justification of all kinds of power grabs and entitlements. And capitalism just has the potential to magnify this effect - e.g. by letting the "smart" and "lucky" control the "less smart" and "less lucky" and call it all "natural" and without alternative.
Virtually no one likes inequality, but we really really don't want mass poverty, starvation, disease, etc that accompany alternative systems. Capitalism is how we minimize for poverty by tolerating some acceptable degree of inequality (it's a tricky but necessary calibration endeavor).
Capitalism by it's nature is exploitative. You work for me and I pay you less than your labor is worth so I make a profit. It's a system built on greed and profit and is most certainly unethical.
The system privileges the top unconditionally. Think what you want, but let's not pretend that capitalism is an ethical system where the laborer isn't exploited.
Exploitation is not an ethical question, it is necessary for societies that a discrepancy exists between the value of labour invested and the value of the return. Otherwise you'd have a society where only those who work would be rewarded, and the ill, the elderly and children would get nothing.
Capitalism doesn't require greed, in the abstract it is just a condition whereby some must sell their labour and others have to buy it. In practice, there are of course a number of issues when production revolved about value accumulation, and it breaks down when the reproduction of society on a material level becomes unprofitable.
Capitalism is the rule by Capital, the impersonal forces that emerge from the structures based on the wage-labour relation. Capitalists, insofar they still exist, are (well-treated) servants, but they have no autonomy and are not rulers. Some stand to gain more than others, naturally, but the need to moralize capitalism is the consequence of weak theory, not something inherent to the system.
Clear away the clutter. Are you able to sell things for more money than you bought them for and still honor your personal values? If you can, then do so.
Forget the slogans, descriptions and tortured analysis. Can you as a human sell things to another human for more than you paid for them in a situation where you are both happy with the price?
If so, do so. If not, I suggest you take a look at what is motivating your feelings.
> Can you as a human sell things to another human for more than you paid for them in a situation where you are both happy with the price?
I would be really interested to understand how someone can exchange a good for someone else's labor (which is what you're describing above) but they can't invest--which is merely paying someone's wage in exchange for a share of the profits. In both cases the participants in the exchange find the agreement to be mutually enriching, so it's not like either is particularly inherently exploitative.
Given that if you don't invest, someone else will (and get marginally higher returns on average), consider investing and donating all of the returns to a labor organization?
I'm not an expert on ethics, but it seems that the captured excess productivity is liberated from the worker regardless of whether you invest or not and if you donate 100% of your profits to labor organizations, you are merely redistributing the money back.
Your investment pays someone's wage, and in exchange for your investment you get interest. This doesn't seem exploitative at all, and moreover I don't know of any economic system that has the ability to minimize poverty and maximize human rights than capitalism.
As a fellow anti-capitalist I struggle with how to live in a clearly capitalist world. I'm currently on track to retire at an average age or earlier and cynically view it as buying freedom from the system. In reality it reminds me of the old company store at coal mines. Paying workers in currency which can only be spent at their own store.
Breaking out of the capitalist cycle seems quite difficult to do while still maintaining a decent quality of life.
I don't understand anti-capitalism. I get that it sucks to work to provide oneself with "a decent quality of life", but the whole point of capitalism is to minimize the amount of work one needs in order to secure that "decent quality of life". I.e., capitalism is the most efficient system we've found to secure a decent quality of life for as many people as possible.
The laws of nature require that food, shelter, and healthcare require the labor of some people and apart from slavery those people need to be compensated for the fruits of their labor. In order for each of us to share in the fruits of their labor, we have to have something with which to compensate them, which is ultimately our own labor.
It feels like anti-capitalists believe there is some forest of money trees that the capitalists are sadistically preventing anyone from accessing.
> What is bad is that I capital can just work and earn money, those not lucky need to be creative and actually use and sell their abilities.
Yeah, inequality is a bummer, but it's a small price to pay to lift billions out of abject poverty. Further, we can do more to calibrate our capitalist systems to be more efficient which is to say we can reduce the amount of inequality and lift more people further out of poverty. That said, capitalism has allowed many of us have been able to lift ourselves out of the labor class and to begin to earn passive income even if it hasn't allowed all of society to do so in perfect lock-step. It's a centuries-long process (7+ billion people distributed through a lot of different cultures and political systems with varying degrees of corruption especially among the non-capitalist systems), but we can get there.
> Also bad: while there is competition, there is just a huge amount of excess and waste work because everybody is determined to out-compete the others
Far less than any other system known to man.
> In the end, a capitalist company aims for perpetual growth and monopoly, because that's where you can set your price and maximize your profit.
Our system largely marshals this corporate greed to the benefit of all of society. Many of us believe it can be marshaled more efficiently (i.e., less inequality and less poverty, probably by steeper taxes on the rich), but we're talking about calibrating the existing system--not changing to a fundamentally different one. Indeed, we haven't found an alternative to capitalism that isn't utterly catastrophic, so complaining about capitalism seems horribly destructive (by all means, complain about the degree to which our system could be made more efficient, but complaining that capitalism is responsible for the constraints imposed by nature is ultimately counterproductive).
I am not interested in descending into an idealogical argument here, but most (serious) anti-capitalist criticisms will acknowledge that capitalism has brought the hitherto highest quality of life, just that it is self-constrained by the necessity to produce for profit.
Socialism is then understood as the overcoming of this constraint, but as always if you ask n socialists/communists you get m answers, where m > n.
It is messy and tiresome to discuss, especially when everyone insists that their personal understandings of what terms mean are the only real ones. More so when you've heard every position a dozen times already...
> it is self-constrained by the necessity to produce for profit
That's a constraint imposed by nature, not by capitalism. Capitalism tries to optimize the amount of profit per unit labor so as to elevate society out of poverty.
Indeed, it seems like the parent thinks that if it weren't for capitalism no one would need to work for their food, shelter, healthcare, etc. When in reality "in order to have basic necessities one must labor" is a natural law and capitalism seeks to minimize the amount of labor required to achieve that decent quality of life. Further, the parent describes himself as participating in capitalism precisely because it is the easiest way to achieve his "decent quality of life".
This seems like the fundamental misunderstanding that anti-capitalists make--everyone wants to minimize the labor required to achieve a decent quality of life, but anti-capitalists uniquely (seem to) believe that capitalism is the reason we have to labor in the first place.
"anti-capitalist" - how does one become an "anti-capitalist" when it's abundantly clear that, even though it's not a perfect system, it's the best system there is? It's the system that facilitates competition, social progress, scientific advancements etc etc
I'm thinking "anti-capitalist" attitude is usually a result of the poor decisions in early adulthood (decisions regarding education, reproduction, career, social circles). When these choices don't pay off, failure to recognize that and self-correct early enough builds resentment. Since the system doesn't reward poor decisions (works as designed) it's very common to shift the blame from yourself (your incapability to adjust, adapt, improvise, and overcome) onto the system and characterize it as "exploitative"
> “anti-capitalist” - how does one become an “anti-capitalist” when it’s abundantly clear that, even though it’s not a perfect system, it’s the best system there is?
Uh, its not “abundantly clear” that its the best system there is, which is why it was mostly thrown out in the mid-20th Century in favor of the modern mixed economy, which mitigate its harms with elements of socialism that are hostile to the basic property relationships underlying capitalism, and the major subsequent debates in the developed world have been largely about fine tuning the balance of capitalist and socialist elements of the modern mixed economy; there is a strongly pro-actual-capitalism faction in modern developed world (e.g., adherents to Austrian school ideological economics), and they are naturally popular among the disproportionately powerful, but they aren’t the consensus, any more than the faction that thinks that the problem with the mixed economy status quo is retaining capitalist elements (the anti-capitalist faction) is.
Let me ask you, why aren't more workers "happy capitalists" and praise this way of living? Why aren't the warehouse workers more happy? Or the people soon displaced by computers and algorithms? Why aren't they look forward to a life of less chore and more free time?
Why do so many people protest against climate change? Why is it ok for corporations to externalize costs? Why is all the considered good?
I'm all for competition and fierce fights, but let just not forget that we live in a "society" and not in a box, everyone for themselves.
Only idiots are always happy. If we see flaws, no matter how small, we try to proceed to the next level by fixing those, there is a brief moment of perceived happiness, but it passes rather quickly, and so cycle continues. What you described is Work-In-Progress. Capitalism is the system that allows that, it allows itself to self-correct.
> Or the people soon displaced by computers and algorithms
Everything that can be automated - should be automated. Humans is a creative reserve that is limited, physical labor needs to become obsolete. Also you don't see any horse carriage operators complaining about being displaced by automotive industry, do you?
> let just not forget that we live in a "society" and not in a box, everyone for themselves
That's right, everyone is not against you, they are just for themselves.
Uh, because capitalists are literally a different class within capitalist society than workers; from top to bottom:
capitalists (haut bourgeoisie)
middle class (petit bourgeoisie)
workers (proleteriat)
underclass (lumpenproletariat)
You might as well ask, of feudal society, why more serfs aren’t “happy aristocrats”.
Capitalism is the best system possible…for people who are both (1) part of the capitalist class, (2) concerned primarily with their own relative position within society.
> Let me ask you, why aren't more workers "happy capitalists" and praise this way of living?
Many are. The others don't understand economics, i.e., they don't understand that capitalism minimizes the amount of work required to meet their needs/desires, not least of all because of the sheer amount of misinformation.
> they don't understand that capitalism minimizes the amount of work required to meet their needs/desires
Anyone who thinks this is merely "ideology"--that there are non-capitalist systems that afford better quality of life for less labor--is invited to support their position with evidence.
> Anyone who thinks this is merely “ideology”--that there are non-capitalist systems that afford better quality of life for less labor–is invited to support their position with evidence.
The evidence is the replacement of the system originally named “capitalism” by its critics, under pressure from its critics, throughout the developed world by the modern mixed economy in the decades of the mid-20th Century, with the modern mixed economy, which afforded the working masses a better quality of life for less labor directly by restraining the property relationships defining capitalism.
The question isn’t whether you can do better in terms of quality of life for workers with less labor than capitalism, the question is whether there is a limit to how far you can move away from capitalism while continuing to improve on that.
> The evidence is the replacement of the system originally named “capitalism” by its critics, under pressure from its critics, throughout the developed world by the modern mixed economy in the decades of the mid-20th Century, with the modern mixed economy, which afforded the working masses a better quality of life for less labor directly by restraining the property relationships defining capitalism.
I’m profoundly disinterested in semantic arguments or moving goalposts.
> The question isn’t whether you can do better in terms of quality of life for workers with less labor than capitalism, the question is whether there is a limit to how far you can move away from capitalism while continuing to improve on that.
Fair enough, but even then the answer by all appearances is “not very”. In other words, no system has done better than those of modern first world countries.
We ended up here, because a) the promise of easy to use structured data - that is inherent in data processing systems - has not been fulfilled: you have to scrape HTML to reconstruct some relational table, and b) information, despite being almost free to transmit in large amounts today, is treated as if it were a physical good, and each copy costs money. There is just lots of money in there, because our economic system looks more backwards than forwards.
I stopped buying from Amazon a couple of years ago - not that I was a frequent shopper before that. I feel it is the same capitalistic dilemma all over again: exploit technology and as opposed to make technology a force for liberation use it as a weapon against labor and call it innovation.
We are in the beginning of our probably very long dystopia, where only the rich will be able to live a life off total surveillance and the rest will be sucked out of all remaining living traces for survival.
The only rule I live by is that I do not try to exert power over anyone that I would not wanted to be subjected to myself. Period.
Germany has free schools, universities, low cost good child care, a relatively good health infrastructure, and more. Some regions do not even need debt any more to finance all this. The high taxes do not just evaporate, but sure could be used more efficiently.
If I'd have the choice between US and Germany, I'd probably prefer the old Europe model.
Joe Rogan said in his earlier podcasts said that the greatest thing money ever did for him was never having to worry about bills. Spent $2000 at a bar buying drinks but didn't know the prices? Oh well. Porsche needs another repair? Sure when will it be done by?
I'm definitely not "rich" in the sense that I'd shrug paying those things off, but if I had to, I could pay it in cash tomorrow no problem. And frankly, I have to agree with his statement. It didn't buy me happiness, but it has bought me peace of mind. I never had to worry once about how I'm going to pay for stuff simply because I just worked and saved my money. I lived a very simple life and never felt a compulsive need to buy expensive and fancy things just because I had the money to do so. I've known way to many people who did that and were always dirt poor. Most of the time they couldn't even afford to fix essential things like a car to get them to their job.
I have gone through frugal periods and embarrassingly not-frugal periods in my life. In the former, I could always afford to pay for what I needed, and that knowledge felt great.
The allure of ultra-wealth for me is not the prospect of a mansion, yacht, or household staff, but the knowledge that I could acquire those things if I wanted them.
I can't imagine ever owning a gaudy estate, of course. But what if I didn't have to care about house/land prices, and I could just buy or build whatever I thought was best for my family? What if I could go to a fancy organic grocery store and know that I could afford literally any grocery bill? What if I could cover my friend's $10k vet bill? What if I could sponsor research into homelessness prevention and addiction recovery? What if I could donate Linux computers and tech support services to local schools? What if I could start my own PAC to fund political candidates I believed in[^]? And so on.
[^]: consider that maybe nobody ought to have this power...
Joe Rogan isn't a great person to take any lessons from. At heart he's a comedian, which must be the most unconventional path you can take to anywhere in the US. Comedians live on the road telling jokes. I wonder how much he really had to deal with bills.
Let me clear up some ignorance since a lot of HN has most likely not listened to enough early Joe Rogan podcasts.
>Joe Rogan isn't a great person to take any lessons from
If a republican says abortion wrong, should we discount their statement because they're republican? It's one thing to just listen to people and believe everything they say. It's another to comprehend when someone is just bullshitting and when someone is speaking from life experience. Joe in the early podcast was far less on the Ivory tower as he is today.
>At heart he's a comedian
Firstly, every single person who brings up his history prior to his mainstream success was he never did drugs, wired out of his mind to do better, and was very high strung. Universally all his friends on the podcast say this. It wasn't until he became a full on stoner that changed.
Also, he said his big breaks were from News Radio and then Fear Factor. Both of which were his steady income's well before he became a famous comedian. He was active as a comedian but he barely had any significant success at it until around Fear Factor. He even acknowledges that he got lucky. So he's not some moron that thinks he was entitled it. He said his whole life would've been different had he not gotten a job on news radio.
>I wonder how much he really had to deal with bills.
None in the context of my statement. All his money paying for his porsche, place to live, and lifestyle were from News Radio and Fear Factor. That's how he got famous and he has since been able to continue that success. His comedy didn't take off outside of Boston until well in his 30's.
You took my comment out of context. I'll take fault for not explaining myself.
Morgan Housel writes for the wide audience of people who might need info about how to handle finances. The target persona is probably someone who has high paying job. Joe Rogan went a path which is probably as far opposite of this you can get. I love the list though. MMA commentator with a company which has only recently been hitting it big. Among the earliest comedian podcasters, which was probably a long grind meant to get more bookings rather than make money directly and then the Fear Factor thing. Just seems like Joe Rogan doesn't really fit as the sort of person you would take something away from while also reading Morgan Housel.
> That's how he got famous
I'm a fan and I love stand-up comedy. The thing that's so cool about stand-up is that even when comics turn mega-stars, they still turn up unannounced at hole-in-the-wall clubs. When I call him a comedian, it's because once a comedian, always a comedian. And I say that with the greatest love.
Wait, you're calling my comment "strange" and then you come back with something like "comedian is a job?" Maybe you misunderstood me because you don't know what a comedian is. It's not a job. You tell jokes in front of people for one-off fees. I would take a WAG and say that 90% of comedians don't cover their living expenses from the craft.
If you're serious about comedy today, you're probably going to live on the road. If you aren't on the road, it's because you don't have the means or the bookings (or you're in a pandemic.) People on the road don't have much bills. The people at the top might, but if you're a young comedian, maybe you're living out of your car. Your bills come from the people controlling the pump you're getting your gas from.
Comedian must be the strangest existence. You sort of get into that mindset by not taking anything seriously, certainly not bills. Then at some point he got into Fear Factor and I imagine that bills were just a question of how large he wanted to live, not worrying about his electric getting cut off. Then he landed the Spotify gig and became a member of a super exclusive club of people who have signed a 100+ million dollar contract. When this dude says he doesn't have to worry about paying bills, he's on a way different level than most people posting here.
> You tell jokes in front of people for one-off fees.
You literally just described a job. A huge portion of the US society makes money from doing things for one-off fees.
A sole proprietor house painter paints houses for one-off fees.
A car driver drives people around for one-off fees.
A motivational speaker talks to a group for one-off fees.
You likely have a stricter definition than the rest of society of what a job is, but you should update it so people know wtf you’re talking about. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/job
> People on the road don't have much bills. The people at the top might, but if you're a young comedian, maybe you're living out of your car. Your bills come from the people controlling the pump you're getting your gas from.
Your grasp on the expenses living on the road is very tenuous. Credit card bills for food/gas/(shelter|gym shower), monthly bills for phone/car insurance/tax payments/car payment/medical expenses, etc. You still very much have to manage finances like anyone else.
> You sort of get into that mindset by not taking anything seriously, certainly not bills.
No, that’s absolutely not how comedy works. Good comedians aren’t just people who don’t give a fuck. You think it’s just people spitting off the cuff but it requires persistence, preparation, and practice. People good at comedy take their craft very seriously.
You’re just describing a deadbeat, which has nothing to do with comedians.
Sure, "job" covers too much area to be useful in this case. "Bob did a good job cleaning the car" is much different than "Bob quit is job today." I have a business which provides services. That service isn't a job, but my specific role as the sole operator of the business might be a job.
Stand-up comedy is more of a craft than a job anyways. Most comedians never get out of the open-mic stage of the craft, and you don't get paid for those.
> Your grasp on the expenses living on the road is very tenuous. Credit card bills
We're assuming many of these people can even get credit cards. We're not talking about SV developers or people working on Wall Street. We're talking about people who put in a significant effort which they don't get paid for and then taking that act on the road for money which barely pays the gas and food to get them from one place to the next. A small number might be able get headliner gigs, which gets you to the point of viable as a living.
> No, that’s absolutely not how comedy works. Good comedians aren’t just people who don’t give a fuck.
What you quoted of mine was about how you get into the stand-up comedian mindset. I know how it works, you grind out stage time at open mics as you develop and fine-tune an act which you can take on the road. To get started on that path, takes a special sort of person. Doug Stanhope, the "comedian's comedian" said something which resonated with me. I'll see if I can find the exact quote, but he said he and his family took nothing seriously as they were growing up. Everything was a joke.
That doesn't mean that stand-up comedians can't make plans.
To invite potential respondents to complete the survey, we used Twitter ads, Facebook ads, Instagram, Quora, VK, and JetBrains’ own communication channels. We also posted links to some user groups and tech community channels, and we asked our respondents to share the link to the survey with their peers.
Probably not where you would look for vim & emacs users.
>>> We also used a set of criteria to identify and exclude suspicious responses: [...] Surveys from identical IP addresses, as well as surveys with responses that were overwhelmingly similar.
That one picked my attention.
All developers in a company are behind a single NAT IP. It's a pretty bad idea to deduplicate based on IP.
I'd hate to find out that my answers were ignored because another coworker also filled the survey. We probably all received the same survey email the same day.
But one thing I am wary is that LeCun - while special and excellent - is just as many others, working at a place where "AI" is already used to "engage people up" - it is just the nature of the business if you are in the engagement business. And your "AI" will gladly help you in all kind of subtle ways. What is also nice is that it's uncharted territory now, so you can freely roam - and engage the heck out of your audience.
And LeCun is just - as a "neutral" scientist - just doing his part.
Why can't he not work at FB? Money? Data?