[HN Gopher] Yann LeCun on his start in AI and recent self-superv... ___________________________________________________________________ Yann LeCun on his start in AI and recent self-supervised learning research Author : andreyk Score : 79 points Date : 2021-08-05 17:03 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (thegradientpub.substack.com) (TXT) w3m dump (thegradientpub.substack.com) | mooseburger wrote: | LeCun is interesting. The way he reasons about AI X-risk makes | him seem like a retard, let's not mince words. He's an actual | example of a mind so specialized that it has lost the capacity | for lateral thinking. | andreyk wrote: | Hey, I am an editor at The Gradient and host of this interview! | As this is only episode 6 the podcast domain is pretty new to | us^, so would definitely welcome feedback on question choice or | my style as an interviewer. We tried focusing much more on | research than other interviews out there such as Lex Fridman's, | would be curious to hear if you think that worked well. | | ^(we've existed as a digital publication focused on AI for way | longer, see thegradient.pub if you're curious.) | joe_the_user wrote: | You don't seem to include a transcript here. Seems like a | serious flaw (I personally prefer transcripts to audio but it's | actually an accessibility issue for some people). | andreyk wrote: | Thanks! We'll work on that | antimora wrote: | I couldn't see this episode in pocketcasts. Is it a technical | delay or it usually becomes available on other platforms later. | andreyk wrote: | Yeah, it usually takes a little while to appear on other | platforms, annoyingly. | danmaz74 wrote: | One very interesting thing that was mentioned in the interview is | how much Facebook relies on deep learning right now; | specifically, how hate speech detection went from 75% manual to | something like 2.5% manual, and how manual false negatives | detection allowed this improvement. | | What I'm wondering is about false positive detection, which | wasn't mentioned, and how much of this incredible decrease in | false negatives came at the expense of an increase in false | positives. | joe_the_user wrote: | Anecdotally, FB's hate speech detector is pathetic. I have lots | of friends run afoul of it for trivial things. It seems no more | coherent than a bunch of regular expressions. | | I had a post in a group get flagged by the algorithm for | something "your politics shouldn't involve saying '[bad word] | about [protected group]'". | | I suspect the problem is there's nothing that would flag as | wrong for a system that just defaults to such crudeness. So | that's what happens. | civilized wrote: | I was once asked to use machine learning to make a record | linkage system for some crappy dataset. I got no | requirements, of course, so I set it up to have a reasonable | balance of precision and recall. After all, the point of | asking for an ML system must be to allow fuzzy matches that a | simple exact matching system would miss, right? | | But my boss apparently got complaints about bad matches, so | he changed it to allow exact matches only. | | The machine learning system ended up being a Rube Goldberg | machine for linking people based on exact name match. | IdiocyInAction wrote: | Is there a summary or transcript available? | andreyk wrote: | There is a rough (AI generated) transcript here: | https://app.trint.com/public/7ad490c6-bf70-41ea-bb43-24c3264... | | We hope to produce polished transcripts in the future, but have | yet to figure out the best way. | | A quick summary is: | | * First ~15 minutes is intro + discussion of Yann's early days | of research in the 80s | | * Minutes 15-~45 cover several notable recent works in self- | supervised learning for computer vision (including SimCLR, | SWAV, SEER, simsiam, barlow twins). | | * Final ~15 minutes are discussion of empirical vs theoretical | research in AI, how AI is used at Facebook, and whether there | will be another AI winter. | scribu wrote: | Thanks for that. It's hard to make out acronyms like "SWAV" | or "SEER" from the audio, if you're not already familiar with | them. | personjerry wrote: | The best way is to have someone listen to the audio and type | it out. | andreyk wrote: | True, I should say the best way that does not involve us | transcribing it by ourselves. In any case, we'll work on | this! | jazzyjackson wrote: | I wonder if you could post the transcript to a git repo | and allow corrections via pull request. Auto-captioning | is a great first step to get phrases set to time-codes, | and then open it up to the community for corrections and | translations. | shoo wrote: | accepting PRs would have the downside of generating | additional work for maintainers of the repo to review | PRs. | jazzyjackson wrote: | Still, it beats paying by the minute to actually hire | someone. | somerandomness wrote: | ASR works pretty well these days | gnicholas wrote: | I've heard great things about Descript. It's not free (aside | from a limited trial), but apparently it makes it really easy | to get good transcripts, and also allows you to clean up the | audio as well. | ok2938 wrote: | 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. | | Why can't he not work at FB? Money? Data? | rchaud wrote: | 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. | throwawaygh wrote: | _> Why can 't he not work at FB? Money?_ | | 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. | [deleted] | jstx1 wrote: | Those problems might be real but they aren't really relevant | to LeCun - it's not like his only options are academia and | Facebook. | andreyk wrote: | 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. | 908B64B197 wrote: | A better format than random Twitter thread where a mob tries to | cancel him [0]. You might recognize one name that got really | famous not long ago! | | [0] https://syncedreview.com/2020/06/30/yann-lecun-quits- | twitter... | malshe wrote: | Thanks for sharing this article. Can someone knowledgeable | about this issue explain why this is not a data issue? I have | read people claiming that ML researchers may bring their own | biases into the models but I haven't seen any concrete example | of that. Even in the Twitter exchange in this article, Gebru | doesn't explain how this is not just data bias. She just throws | a lot of insults at LeCun but anyone can do that, right? I | would have loved to see her explanation as she is the expert in | this area. | visarga wrote: | Well, technically, the way you choose the algorithm and set | the hyper-parameters can influence accuracy in a non-uniform | way over the distribution of data, introducing additional | bias. The training process also introduces bias: optimizer, | batch size, learning rate and duration. | horrified wrote: | Horrible story :-( And once again the grievance strategy was | successful. | mrtranscendence wrote: | I don't know how folks can be aware of how the exchange went | down and say that it was a "successful" "grievance strategy". | LeCunn wasn't necessarily in the right here, and it wasn't | only Gebru's twitter followers going on the offensive. | 908B64B197 wrote: | > LeCunn wasn't necessarily in the right here | | And yet, he was. | | Gebru couldn't know that, because despite all her claims, | she's not technical. | spoonjim wrote: | Gebru is not a Woz-level wizard like LeCun but someone | who worked at Apple as an engineer and did a PhD with | Fei-Fei Li cannot be dismissed as "not technical." | horrified wrote: | Well LeCunn quit Twitter, so it is "one down". That is what | I meant by successful. And Gebru's "arguments" weren't even | arguments, just "whatever you say is wrong because you are | white and don't recognise our special grievances". | | I personally agree with what he said when he said it is a | difference between a research project and a commercial | product. No actual harm was done when the AI completed | Obama's image into a white person. You could just laugh | about it and move on. | [deleted] | frozenport wrote: | Not to mention Obama is 50% white. | | (picture of his parents) https://static.politico.com/dims | 4/default/553152c/2147483647... | andreyk wrote: | Not to disagree, but a couple of FYIs: | | * LeCun did not really quit Twitter, he's still active on | there and has been for a while - but I guess he did | temporarily when all this happened. | | * many researchers agreed with Gebru's opposition to | LeCun's original point - see tweets by Charles Isbel, | yoavgo, Dirk Hovy embedded here | https://thegradient.pub/pulse-lessons/ under 'On the | Source of Bias in Machine Learning Systems' (warning - it | takes a while to load). There was a civil back-and-forth | between him and these other researchers as you can see in | that post, so it was a point worth discussing. Gebru | mostly did not participate in this beyond her initial | tweets as far as I remember. | | * Lecun got into more heat when he posted a long set of | tweets to Gebru which to many seemed like he was | lecturing her on her subject of expertise aka | 'mansplaining'. I am sure many would see that as | nonsense, but afaik many people making that point was the | cause of quitting twitter. | horrified wrote: | Thanks for the further background information. I have to | say it doesn't really make it better for me. The "angry | people" are of course correct that you can also create | bias in other ways than data sets. But are they implying | that people generally deliberately introduce such biases | to uphold discrimination? That seems like a very serious | and offensive claim to make, and not very helpful either. | | The whole way to think about issues is backwards in my | opinion. I would think usually when you train some | algorithm, you tune and experiment until it roughly does | what it wants you to do. I don't think anybody starts out | by saying "let's use the L2 loss function so that | everybody starts white". They'll start with some loss | function, and if the results are not as good as they | hope, they'll try another one. In fact the usual approach | will lead back to issues with the data set, because that | is what people will test and tweak their algorithms with. | If the dataset doesn't contain "problematic" cases, they | won't be detected. | | But overall, such misclassifications are simply "bugs" | that should get a ticket and be fixed, not trigger huge | debates. I think it is toxic to try to frame everything | as an issue of race. | IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: | > You might recognize one name | | Yes, it's terrible when people are subject to all sorts of | personal attacks based on snark and innuendo. | elefanten wrote: | This is indecipherable to me. Who are you taking a shot at? | Is this comment pro-snark or anti-snark? Sarcastic or | straight? Who knows. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-08-05 23:00 UTC)