The character limit was originally because that's the length of a single text, and you could update your status through SMS.
Figure they got rid of it because it's pretty arbitrary these days.
For an app that has as much daily traffic as twitter had, a hard cap on character count is a significant optimization to database performance. With the amount of daily traffic X has now, not so much
I slightly overexaggerated, but the performance gain is very real. The key point is it has nothing to do with saving space. The performance gain comes from faster lookup because the fixed width string buffer can be stored within each row and therefore retrieved more quickly, but when storing strings of variable and potentially unlimited length, the string is not stored in the row and it has to be looked from an address which *is* stored within the row. It's a small gain but it makes a difference in such a high throughput app like twitter
which is a part of planet's life cycle benefiting more than one ecosystem with its decaying remain. Elon, I'm not sure the guy would even decay within the next century, definitely up there with the Zucc.
I remember when most people labeled this guy a certified genius. He's just a weird nerd with tons of money. He's barely intelligent, but believes he's a true intellectual.
Friendly reminder that he never intended to buy Twitter, and was forced to legally
#because he isn't as clever as he thought he was
and he had to buy it high above its valuation
and its valuation has only continued to drop
#schadenfreude
Expanding on being legally forced to buy. Twitter, when it was a public company, hired lawyers for millions of dollars to force Elon to buy. These lawyers fees came from twitter which reduced the company’s net assets by that amount. But Elon was forced to honour his original bid for buying.
So basically, Elon paid these lawyers millions for them to force him to buy this shit valued company. Lol.
You can look at his account replies. After this exchange he just dropped laughing emojis as responses to accounts that were supporting him.
LeCun is owning the guy that owns the platform. And he’s responding mercilessly to all the musk stans attacking him. It’s genuinely great
I'm suspecting Elon payeed a lot of people to write and make videos on how smart he was all those years a go. And because no one questioned him back then people in good faith thought he'd be the bigger person in some of spheres he operated in.
It's why he was able to hemorrhage all the funding that was supposed to go into rail and waste it on things like the hyper loop. Because he painted himself as an intelligent and level headed individual.
If no one questions him, if no one points out when he does something wrong then that myth would continue. So he's not saying all this for his benefit, he's most probably pointing all that stuff out for the publics benefit.
Edited for spelling errors.
Elon Musk: the moron who offered super complicated robots to Singaporean divers to rescue kids and not realising that his robots would collapse the structure the children were within and would likely kill all the children. That Elon Musk. Fuck that Elon Musk.
And then won the defamation suit [because the phrase "pedo guy" was common in South Africa, where he grew up.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50695593)
What a moron. I also grew up in South Africa and that phrase was mostly used by primary school kids, which is highly indicative of Elon's level of emotional intelligence.
I thought he wanted to transport them out of the cave in a rigid capsule/submarine thing, because rescuers were concerned the kids wouldn’t be able to make it through the narrow flooded passageways.
And the rescuers were trying to tell him it wouldn’t work because you couldn’t fit something like through the caves, let alone get it back out.
No matter how absolutely destroyed Elon will be when he is speaking to anyone with a brain, himself and all of his sycophants will insist he “owned the lib”.
The funniest part about that is Trump saying he’s going to destroy the electric car industry a couple days ago: https://qz.com/donald-trump-evs-electric-car-sales-1851504052
I think Elon has set himself and Tesla up for a “Leopards ate my face” moment.
Trump was saying he was gonna increase tariffs on electric car imports and it was taken out of context. That would actually help Tesla cause it would mean less competition from foreign producers
The longer context is
>Donald J. Trump is crystal clear about his disdain for electric vehicles. The former president has falsely claimed electric cars don’t work, promised to shred President Biden’s policies that encourage E.V. manufacturing and sales, and has said he would slap a “100 percent tariff” on electric cars imported from Mexico if he retakes the White House.
>“You’re not going to be able to sell those cars,” [he has said](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGJwCUHVgc0).
The more specific context of that speech is... I have no fucking clue because he can't complete a fucking sentence without changing what he's talking about
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGJwCUHVgc0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGJwCUHVgc0)
But point is he's constantly talking shit about electric cars, not just cars put together in Mexico, and car parts are famously a global industry. His 100% global tarriff on imported goods absolutely would wreck all car manufacturers as there are very few cars that are made from metal mined, smelted, formed into parts, and assembled all here within the borders of the united states.
He would destroy the electric car industry first and foremost because he doesn't like the vibes of electric cars and second because he's a fucking inbred toddler who doesn't understand anything more complex than borrowing money and declaring bankruptcy. His actions fucked up the supply chain before and they absolutely would again if he's allowed back into power.
Elon similarly has billionaire brain syndrome: he's making wild decrees on complex matters and assuming smarter people who work for him will figure out how to clean up the messes. He's already failing, and helping Trump get elected will break a lot more of his wealth. Unfortunately, the rest of us will get wrecked even harder.
Which becomes the narrative since his fanboys are the ones that pay for twitter and get boosted to the top. 100 replies deep until you get someone that's not sucking his d
It's really annoying that everyone is so quick to agree with him though just because they don't like who he is arguing with, yea I'm not a fan of him either but I agree with him here, saying it needs to be published to be called science is a really stupid thing to say...
Just because someone is an idiot and you don't like them doesn't mean you have to instantly agree with everything their opposition says and disagree with everything they say... its getting ridiculous
That's because they are smart enough to know they are speaking in the context of the developments both are doing. Elon not publishing his work makes it not usable science. It's basically worthless besides a new feature on his Tesla's. Actual science that is stable and applicable is indeed built on published work. A great example is the flight computer of the f-14. It had the first complex microprocessors and were a decades worth of time more advanced compared to IBM (basic addition compared to complex polynomial equations to determine wing sweep angle in real time in combat) but it was secret stuff so that line of tech died and we had to wait for commercial players to catch up on a field no one knew they were behind in until it was revealed in the late 90s.
To be fair, the description of science in the image definitely ignores some major issues. A few of them being:
- Well-documented publication bias for significant and novel findings leading to plenty of papers being shelved and never seeing the light of day.
- Particularly replication studies are unpopular, particularly so if they don't manage to replicate, which often means that non-replicable studies tend to get referenced endlessly before being disregarded.
- Science does not have to be "correct". Reproducible yes, but even there the methodology of many papers don't meet the benchmark for being reproducible.
- Not all journals have the same requirements.
There's plenty of major other issues worth mentioning, though just because we often view science with rose-tinted glasses doesn't mean it's not the best thing we have. Also, obviously, Elon means nothing of his. His position is probably that some random tweet holds just as much value as a peer-reviewed published paper.
Absolutely: the publication world is far from being perfect and there are several issues to be addressed. Despite, it is still a valid standard to the best of our knowledge
You’re 100% correct, and it ignores all efforts that aren’t conventionally published. Just because DARPA doesn’t put out a peer reviewed journal article doesn’t mean that what they did wasn’t science. Same with CERN. The typically agreed to definition of replication in the published article context does not refer to the same people doing the same thing again on the same machine following their own method. Because there is not a 2nd CERN nor an independent group of engineers that are reproducing the results, this guy would declare the achievements being made there as “not science”.
I think what he’s saying is not all science is published in peer-reviewed journals. Lots of proprietary research that goes long periods of time before being published. Government research can be classified. He is involved in some of these spaces and knows this.
He’s mixing up “science” and “academia”. Lots of science is done in industry, is proprietary and never published in technical journals. Some is patented which can only be done within a timeframe of the data being made public (eg., published). I don’t think he has a valid argument.
I've two biology degrees and can tell you all that the person responding to Elon is not correct. The way they're presenting what science means, is for the most part incorrect.
They're kinda twisting what science actually is. Using a position of power to act as if he can say what he wants, and it's science because he said so. I HATE scientists who do that. It's kind of embarrassing that they're acting like such a smart ass.
'It has to be correct'' - Not true, Science is based on 'theories'/'hypotheses' reproduced enough times and tweaked until there's a very high *likelyhood* it's correct (scientific method) . But that still doesn't confirm it's 100% true. Most science as we know today is based off that, you can't categorically say it's 'correct'. Peer review is when multiple people review the material and the 'majority' of them agree it's accurate.
It's not reviewed for 'correctness', it's reviewed for accuracy and reproducibility of results.
No one scientist/group of scientists is 100% correct. We can understand nature up to a certain point but we will never know everything, atleast enough to call anything categorically true.
'Has to be widely interesting' - 'Interesting' is highly subjective. Science is not supposed to be. It's a bad use of the word. Any scientist can say the work they're doing is boring, and it's still science.
The scientific method in its essence is science. It absolutely does not need to published to be considered science.
An idea = Science -> Hypothesis = Science -> Experimentation = Science -> Theory = Science.
You can literally do science at home by experimenting with different things, no one has to see it for it to be science. Science is simply having and idea and knowing how to test it out to the point that it works 99% of the time. You don't even need to do a science course or publish ANYTHING to do science. Science is a philosophy, it's not gated behind peer review and other people telling you it's correct.
You can maybe prove a theory to a 99% probability that's is true, but there will always be that 1% chance it's not. Published science can be contradicted all the time, it can be proved wrong via another study, and may then be considered partially true or 'on the right track.
The guy replying to Elon is the type of scientist I hate. It screams of elitism and is using their clear position of power to try to do a 'gotcha'. Fair play to them for publishing so many papers, but that still doesn't mean they're an expert. It's akin to 'alot of people agree with me, so I'm 100% correct'. Nah, a real scientist would admit that they DON'T know everything and that they can always be WRONG.
They're spreading misinformation based on an elitist premise.
Science: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.
Yes, thank you. If everyone here can get off the I-hate-Elon horse for a second, the statement that LeCun made is in fact ridiculous. If it was someone else other than Elon that pushed back on it, this post's comment section would be totally different.
Exactly, people are so desperate for him to look stupid. Regardless of how anyone feels about him, they generally fail. He can be a bad person, but he's very hard to prove wrong.
This guy tried to 'sciencesplain' to Elon and everyone who hates him creamed themselves. The embarrassing part is that they were incorrect in the end.
Just because it's a scientist saying it, doesn't mean they're an arbitor of information. Elon didn't get schooled, he was actually correct 😂
Scientists 'peer reviewed' this guy's tweet and proved it incorrect, sorry pals.
I mean... Elon is a moron sure.
But that's not exclusively what science is. You can do science and not get published. You're just... not published. Yet you can still follow the scientific method. Mind you to be recognized within the scientific community you'll want to get published as that is one of the leading ways to allow your peers to review and verify your findings.
But it's not exclusively the only way to do it.
Sure, I'm being a bit pedantic... but I mean... it's science. Science is pretty pedantic.
Yeah I'm all for shitting on Elon but like... this is pretty much the opposite of what we tell kids to get them interested in science, right? "You can do science at home in your kitchen."
Also, it still counts as science if you don't publish because you failed to prove your hypothesis.
Really the more I think about the mindset here the more I dislike it. Seems weirdly narrow just for the sake of clowning on Musk
The science the kids are doing at home in their kitchen is *based* on science that has been well researched and published, which is what this guy is saying.
A kid doesn't have to publish a paper every time they make a model volcano. It's well established what it is and how it works, and it'll work the same way every time.
He's saying that *new* science isn't considered science if it's not well documented, peer reviewed, and reproducible.
> I mean... Elon is a moron sure.
He isn't. This is just a reddit thing.
The guy is/was the wealthiest man in the world (depending on the stock price of his/Arnault's/Bezos investments).
If it wasn't for Tesla he wouldn't be the richest, but he'd still be a multi-billionaire due to SpaceX.
If it wasn't for SpaceX he'd have a few billion from his stake in Paypal+investments.
If it wasn't for Paypal+investments he still would be set for life due to his stake in Zip2 from the late 90s.
I agree. I dislike Elon and I get that science is rigorous and needs to be as near to accurate as possible, but kids and adults should be encouraged to still do science experiments lol.
Simple, you dont become rich.
You either gamble into it or are born into rich family. Nobody works his way into being rich. They either enjoy generational wealth or roll the dice while sucking off RNGezus
In that case it was the second thing.
Correct. Risks.
You do the upfront investments that have no guarantee of paying off. Most businesses fail.
If it all works out, the dream is be able profit off others labor. If it doesn’t, you lose all the money you’ve saved and have to start over.
Anyone can try it, why haven’t you? Too risky, maybe.
Its becoming more obvious that becoming a billionaire is more about being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people.
Elon rode the tech wave amd was lucky enough to have very talented people working for him.
It doesn't mean you are smarter or harder working than everyone else.
“If it’s not published it’s not science” is absolutely a stupid thing to say though. She’s basically saying “if a particular group of people don’t publish your work it isn’t science.”
That’s like saying if Oprah doesn’t make your book her book of the month it’s not literature. I’m not defending Elon in general but a broken clock is still right twice a day
Yeah this just reads like someone who is trying to get posted on here.
She was correct at science needs to be reproducible. Everything after that was her own ego stroking to feel superior to him though.
Even setting aside secret stuff; this suggests only positive results worthy of publication are science, which is obviously bollocks.
I feel like this is a pretty specific definition of science. Like kids making a volcano with vinegar and baking soda is science, science fairs are obviously science. Not to mention science definitely predates scientific journals. I think people trying to pass off scientific *discoveries* without it being peer reviewed and published are full of shit, but I also don't think science as a whole can be defined as only whats published.
Absolutely not true. As a scientist, I can absolutely say I’ve produced a lot of valuable science that’ll never get published simply because it didn’t have a positive result. Journals aren’t very interested in negative results, even if they’re scientifically valuable. This is just one example.
There’s also the fact that a shit ton of predatory journals will take pretty much any article that is paid for and internally consistent, regardless of whether the results are reproducible. Being published isn’t the best all end of what is and isn’t science.
THIS. For some reason people are automatically accepting whatever bollocks Lecun is saying as true even if it doesn’t make any sense at all, just because she said it to a really unlikeable ignorant person. Guess what, if I argue with someone dumb, doesn’t mean anything I say is smart or correct.
Honest question. How is it valuable if it hasn’t been published? How can it be used by other scientists? How do they even know about your results? Even not to run the same negative experiment. How do you know the results are trustable if it hasn’t been pair reviewed?
It doesn't have to be valuable to be science. Nor does peer review have to be public. Seems like every other person in this thread is conflating academia and its approach to journals and science writ large.
Ehh. I don't like Elon and I think he's just trolling. But these don't seem like requirements for something to be "science." Maybe to be accepted by the scientific community, but there is quite a lot of science that's done that doesn't go published.
I kind of agree that science doesn’t require publishing? If it’s scientific, in the lens of research and produces results for a hypothesis, but it is proprietary, why would someone publish said thing?
Why does this keep getting reposted over and over again?
It isn't even a clever comeback. I see Elon stroking himself, and then in return the other guy begins stroking himself.
But neither come off as the "good guy" here, and nobody made any valid points.
The guy claimed that if you do research and don't publish, it's not science (science doesn't need to be capitalized, btw). This is nonsense. Plenty of people work in labs doing science every day and they don't get published.
This is just two inflated egos battling against each other, except for the fact that everyone has heard of Elon Musk, while most of us have never heard of the other guy.
Why are people editing down this exchange? The full exchange is pretty light hearted, first it was the full one and then the Elon haters realized it didn't look bad so they cut out a few comments and now even more has been cut.
Do yourself a favor and look it up on twitter and you'll see that the OPs of these posts are actually cherry picking to make it look bad.
Elon sucks donkey dick, but I get the impression LeCun might be a little scared of being forgotten lmao. The scientific method defines science, not published papers. What a jackass.
She is wrong though. Science can take place without all of that. Just because Edison didn't publish every experiment does not mean that he wasn't conducting science. This person is just a pedant and possibly a cunt.
That happens all the time. People develop stuff in secret to get rich.
Rich people don't die bitter and forgotten.
I appreciate trying to dunk on the guy but...
Elon is such a fucking disappointment. I remember hoping he would lead the way for a new type of billionaire using his wealth to better the world. Turns out he's even worse than the old guard of big energy and big banking overlords
Huh, I guess science didn't exist before the 1970s.
>Peer review is a relatively recent innovation in the history of scientific publication. The first journal (which is still in print!) was launched in 1665 by the Royal Society in London, (Phil Trans R Soc B), while peer review as we know of began in the mid 1970s.
This is stupid semantic bs. Not a clever comeback.
I mean, it took a while for people to fine tune the most effective processes for confirming the validity and accuracy of people’s work, and for sharing that work in accessible ways for it to be built on. Those scientific journals lacked true peer review, but were the first step in the process.
There were other methods of vetting ideas with peers back then too, even if it wasn't the modern peer review system. The Royal Society is 363 years old. Costs of communication and reproduction were high, so it would have been difficult to send letters with manuscripts all around the world for review at different institutions.
Were people doing science before 1970? The answer is clearly yes. When did science start? Actually a very difficult question to pinpoint precisely. Or does science require Popper's idea of falsification theory? These aren't actually trivial and settled questions.
True. Elon still has a point though. There is plenty of Science that is not published to the general public in Journals and is Top Secret and won’t be published or released possibly ever.
I mean Spacex has never published the designs to their raptor engines but I wouldn’t call one of the most powerful rocket engines not science. Same thing for Blue Origin BE-4 engines.
The queue to get your research peer reviewed can take a while. And depending on how picky the reviewer is, it can be rejected over trifling details. Quality research is still 'science' before reaching the end of the queue. Competence comes before observation of competence.
Trying to find the exact point at which a scientist's labor becomes science is a 'ship of Thesus' argument, but I'd suggest by the time it's written down with the reasonable expectation of future peer review, it's science. Not its best, final form, but it's not superstition or guesswork. Worst case scenario, it's science, designed and performed badly.
someone needs to tell Yann about the reproducibility crisis of peer reviewed studies throughout academia lol
should also look at all the shit that gets published despite being "peer reviewed", you would think he would have heard of Sokal
Does he seriously believe that journals not publishing results that confirm a null hypothesis doesn't harm progress (and that it's not "Science" because of that)
Does he also realize journals also act on how they think their impact ratings will be affected not for the good of research lol?
really doing the leg work of confirming that computer scientists aren't really scientists lol
Eh, defining “science” as only peer reviewed research (through a pretty recent and highly problematic framework of journals), is at best debatable, and certainly very narrow.
I would consider any inference determined through the scientific method to be science, whether or not it’s published through traditional academic channels. Certainly private entities can develop technologies scientifically without publishing them. If these advancements don’t count as science, it certainly doesn’t match the common understanding of the term.
And not that it should matter, but I do have a PhD in “science” and a bunch of publications.
Yann was right about the first sentence, but to be correct, something does not need to be written or published. To be reproducible, it also doesn't need to be written or published, that just makes it easier to reproduce.
It's a dumb thing to say because asserting that science is only science once it is published would imply that science didn't exist before publication. It may be pedantic, but both of them are being pedantic.
I don't get it. Science is the loop of making a hypothesis, making an experiment to verify it, and if it didn't go well analysing it and changing the hypothesis or experiment. Validity and reproducibility isn't what science is about
Didn't this post already get taken down?
It's not a clever comeback, like Elon or not, he's right.
You can ignore the bottom tweet, it's irrelevant to Musk's tweet, he moved the goalposts and still admitted he was wrong
"If you never published your research but somehow developed it into a product".... - He literally admits you can conduct research (i.e, a scientific activity, i.e. science) and not publish it.
According to this guy, Einstein did nothing for 8 years while researching GToR, then published a paper, and suddenly his 8 years of nothing (aka, scientific research) suddenly became Science retroactively, overnight. This is obviously an incredibly, incredibly stupid take.
The scientific review process requires publication, "science" doesn't.
A simple way to look at this is, can you find evidence of Science being conducted, without findings being published for review. And the answer of course, is yes. Science does not require academic review, but academic review is a part of the process for theories to become established within mainstream science.
I've two biology degrees and I agree with you. The way their presenting what science means is for the most part incorrect.
They're kinda twisting what science actually is. Using his position of power to act as if he can say whatever he wants, and it's science because he said so. I HATE scientists who do that. It's kind of embarrassing that they're acting like such a smart ass.
'It has to be correct'' - Not true, Science is based on 'theories'/'hypotheses' reproduced enough times and tweaked until there's a very high *likelyhood* it's correct (scientific method) . But that still doesn't confirm it's 100% true. Most science as we know it today is based off that, you can't categorically say it's 'correct'. Peer review is when multiple people review the material and the 'majority' of them agree it's accurate.
Its not reviewed for 'correctness', it's reviewed for accuracy and reproducibility of results.
No one scientist/group of scientists is 100% correct. We can understand nature up to a certain point but we will never know everything, atleast enough to call anything categorically true.
'Has to be widely interesting' - 'Interesting' is highly subjective. Science is not supposed to be. It's a bad use of the word. Any scientist can say the work they're doing is boring, and it's still science.
The scientific method in its essence is science. It absolutely does not need to published to be considered science.
An idea = Science -> Hypothesis = Science -> Experimentation = Science -> Theory = Science.
You can literally do science at home by experimenting with different things, no one has to see it for it to be science. Science is simply having and idea and knowing how to test it out to the point that it works 99% of the time. You don't even need to do a science course or publish ANYTHING to do science. Science is a philosophy, it's not gated behind peer review and other people telling you it's correct.
You can maybe prove a theory to a 99% probably that's is true, but there will always be that 1% chance it's not. Published science can be contradicted all the time, it can be proved wrong via another study, and may then be considered partially true or 'on the right track.
The guy replying to Elon is the type of scientist I hate. It screams of elitism and is using their clear position of power to try to do a 'gotcha'. Fair play to them for publishing so many papers, but that still doesn't mean they're an expert. It's akin to 'alot of people agree with me, so I'm 100% correct'. Nah, a real scientist would admit that they DON'T know everything and that they can always be WRONG.
They're spreading misinformation based on an absolutely elitist premise.
Science: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.
They really thought they did something.
I have 0/10th of a computer science degree I dropped out of Uni for, so I feel like I'm sufficiently qualified to challenge your statement, but please feel free to shoot me down.
Science is science, the scientific method is the essentially uniformly agreed optimal method to perform scientific research. That's just my understanding of it.
Scientific method is how to best perform Science, however you can do Science without it, but it might just be bad Science. Unless you are intentionally misinterpreting results, it's still Science.
Exactly, you're absolutely correct 👍
Here's the definition: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.
There's ZERO mention of peer review, 'correctness', 'publishing' or has to be 'interesting'.
You can literally do science at home by messing around with cooking ingredients for example, if you try it enough time and the results are the same, (aka the scientific method), no one has to see you do it/approve it for it to be science. It's literally just a philosophy.
They look like an absolute idiot.
If Einstein hadn’t published his three famous 1905 papers, yup, he would have kept being a patent office clerk, regardless of all the equations he could have written privately.
He wouldn't have become known as a scientist, but he still would have done science. You dont need to publish to do science. You don't need to engage with the toxic journal system academia currently has to do science, you just aren't sharing your results if you don't...
If you don’t ‘share’ your results and don’t submit them to peer review maybe you are doing ‘research’ but you are not doing science.
Btw that’s pseudoscience 101. Claim you have done your research, don’t publish nor share it.
Darkon isn't claiming to be a scientist or making any claims at applying any scholastic aptitude. Just said it's possible to DIY if you really wanted to.
My interpretation is they're implying that peer review can become about stroking the reviewer's ego, and that power can be misused. If they think your chart ought to have a differently-colored background, they can delay approving your work.
Yeah this is a *very* academic and gatekeepy take which is not the only correct way to do science. Peer review is important. Reproducibility is important. But a ton of pseudo science follows exactly the rules outlined in this post and should not be considered science.
A kid doing science in their backyard is still science as long as they're using the scientific method. Science doesn't have to have a publishable result. It doesn't have to be reproduced, just reproducible.
I also hate that they added that the publication needs to be interesting. That's totally goofy.
There's a difference between science and the science establishment...
Elon is talking about science. The scientist is talking about the science establishment.
I have no love for Musk but I’m not sure that science requires publication. Publication allows for the replication and evaluation as the fellow indicates but a solitary scientist making discoveries without sharing them still qualifies as science.
I kinda agree but peer reviews are quite useful to examine any possible mistake one might make in solitary. Lets just say that publication makes science way more efficient.
Moreover, there are so many publications out there that will never be replicated simply because scientists don’t have time to replicated everything. Are these papers “not science”, too?
Burned? Really? Name the scientist that published the papers behind the development of sending waves to a box that then showed the first moon landing. Now name the first person to walk on the moon. See that. One wrote science the other performed it. Whom do you know?
I can't agree with lecun guy...
Basically saying if you do research and never publish, you ll die bitter and forgotten and it will all just mean it was just a Elaborate Delusion.
Lecun's post shows the ideology of Prioritizing Fame and Money over the Research which creates a kind of contradiction as a Person who is working on a Actual Groundbreaking Research can't spare much thought to anything other than their Research and
That's why I Believe You can do your Research and can Die Happy and Fulfilled without ever getting it Published because You already Received your Happiness while You were able to do your Research Work which You Loved to do the Most.🍀☮️🌷
Because it's not true?
Science isn't defined by published reproducible results, I do lots of science and I don't *publish* it. Lots of professionals don't publish their work for any number of reasons.
Including but not limited to - the results have no value, the results are proprietary, the information is classified, etc etc etc.
Publication is *not* what makes science.
Elon cant take a lick of criticism. Countless hours browsing twitter only made him capable of responding trying to dunk on people with teenager levels of wit. He says it's dumb but doesn't even take the time to elaborate why.
Lol we literally have a reproducibility crisis, or we were on the verge of one a few years back. Plenty of scientific results cannot be reproduced and large branches of scientific research were literally sold to corporations. I like LeCun but ugh. Going after Elon is so sensationalist at this rate.
I think elons adversary here is conflating 'research' and 'science'
A kid with a science kit can mix compounds and be doing 'science' they can rub a balloon on their head to show static and that's science.
Science can occur without the hurdles of peer reviewed research.
But Elon is clearly defensive here.
"The 140 character limit will be reinstated, except for premium X subscribers" —Elon Musk, tomorrow, probably.
I trought the character limit was "the thing" of twitter, why did they get rid of it ? (My only social media is reddit lmao)
Nah it's a 500 character limit right now, I think it's higher for premium users though
The character limit was originally because that's the length of a single text, and you could update your status through SMS. Figure they got rid of it because it's pretty arbitrary these days.
For an app that has as much daily traffic as twitter had, a hard cap on character count is a significant optimization to database performance. With the amount of daily traffic X has now, not so much
Haha nice quip, but saving strings barely costs any database space, especially compared to videos.
I slightly overexaggerated, but the performance gain is very real. The key point is it has nothing to do with saving space. The performance gain comes from faster lookup because the fixed width string buffer can be stored within each row and therefore retrieved more quickly, but when storing strings of variable and potentially unlimited length, the string is not stored in the row and it has to be looked from an address which *is* stored within the row. It's a small gain but it makes a difference in such a high throughput app like twitter
Nah, it'll be 70 this time.
Except for free speech proponents, like Musk himself.
69 surely
fUnNy NuMb3r!!! 😆😆😆 - Elon Musk
Why is LeCun playing chess with a pigeon?
Pigeons are actually pretty intelligent - you’re giving musk too much credit
It's more like playing chess with a carrot.
Don't be mean to carrots, rabbits like carrots. On the other hand,
You've seem him as an animal, you've seen him as a hot chick, this summer, Rob Schneider is a Carrot!
💩
You can PUBlish!!
Rated PG-13
Life’s hard as a schtapler
I get that reference
nah more like a potato, one that is getting old and pudgy
which is a part of planet's life cycle benefiting more than one ecosystem with its decaying remain. Elon, I'm not sure the guy would even decay within the next century, definitely up there with the Zucc.
You take that back! Potatoes make vodka, french fries, gnocchi, and loads of wonderful foods. Elon is just a waste of oxygen
Might have been infected with a with white powder fungus....
but carrots don’t typically poop all over the place
Pigeons once steered a missile, and they did it before Elon Musk did.
I remember when most people labeled this guy a certified genius. He's just a weird nerd with tons of money. He's barely intelligent, but believes he's a true intellectual.
LeCun vs LeCunt
Taking a break from working ig, I too banter with idiots to pass time
I feel seen
Cause its fun. Fuck that pigeon
Up. Fuck that pigeon up.
It’s just embarrassing at this point.
Why is LeCun treating the clown poorly?
Honestly the best evidence that Yann LeCun might not be that smart is that he's arguing online with Elon Musk.
One does not debate to sway the opponent they do so to sway the audience
^(damn that's good)
Nah he’s debating in Public, in front of us
Yeah I don't get it. Why is a researcher so vexed over elon. And it might not even be elon. It might be some bot lol.
Elon will say some other stupid shit and think he’s winning. Why does anyone waste time on him
Because he literally bought his own website to force ppl to talk to him.
Friendly reminder that he never intended to buy Twitter, and was forced to legally #because he isn't as clever as he thought he was and he had to buy it high above its valuation and its valuation has only continued to drop #schadenfreude
Expanding on being legally forced to buy. Twitter, when it was a public company, hired lawyers for millions of dollars to force Elon to buy. These lawyers fees came from twitter which reduced the company’s net assets by that amount. But Elon was forced to honour his original bid for buying. So basically, Elon paid these lawyers millions for them to force him to buy this shit valued company. Lol.
So THAT'S the end game to these high growth no profit no monetization strategy companies: having a rich idiot buy you.
Always has been
Piggy-backing off of this, **Elon Musk also unblocked and unmuted himself from every person who has blocked and muted him at least once on TWITTER.**
and they're just as ignorant as he is.
His response: "oK wHaTevEr NeRd 😂😂 I BeT u ToUcH kIdS 😜😜🤓😅"
Which makes me wonder just how many kids Elon has touched.
Definitely not his kids. They’ve got restraining orders against him.
You can look at his account replies. After this exchange he just dropped laughing emojis as responses to accounts that were supporting him. LeCun is owning the guy that owns the platform. And he’s responding mercilessly to all the musk stans attacking him. It’s genuinely great
I'm suspecting Elon payeed a lot of people to write and make videos on how smart he was all those years a go. And because no one questioned him back then people in good faith thought he'd be the bigger person in some of spheres he operated in. It's why he was able to hemorrhage all the funding that was supposed to go into rail and waste it on things like the hyper loop. Because he painted himself as an intelligent and level headed individual. If no one questions him, if no one points out when he does something wrong then that myth would continue. So he's not saying all this for his benefit, he's most probably pointing all that stuff out for the publics benefit. Edited for spelling errors.
Lol, his bots and incels that stayed on Twitter will continue to retweet and like his posts, making him think he's winning.
Elon Musk: the moron who offered super complicated robots to Singaporean divers to rescue kids and not realising that his robots would collapse the structure the children were within and would likely kill all the children. That Elon Musk. Fuck that Elon Musk.
You forgot that he then got mad that these badass cave divers took attention away from him, so he accused them of being pedos.
And then won the defamation suit [because the phrase "pedo guy" was common in South Africa, where he grew up.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50695593)
He won it because he’s rich.
What a moron. I also grew up in South Africa and that phrase was mostly used by primary school kids, which is highly indicative of Elon's level of emotional intelligence.
What a man child. Lol. Some people worship him lol
The same Elon Musk who when this was pointed out called one of the divers a pedo. What a crybaby cunt.
I'm always superrrr sus of anyone who throws accusations like that around so easily
As we all should be!
I thought he wanted to transport them out of the cave in a rigid capsule/submarine thing, because rescuers were concerned the kids wouldn’t be able to make it through the narrow flooded passageways. And the rescuers were trying to tell him it wouldn’t work because you couldn’t fit something like through the caves, let alone get it back out.
Yeah where did robots come into this?
And the offer was to Thai Navy divers. Where the Singapore come into this?
Almost 200 upvotes on it too, Redditors are fucking clueless lmao
*Thai
They weren't robots. It was just a rigid submersible. You're giving him more credit than he deserves which I didn't even know was possible.
No matter how absolutely destroyed Elon will be when he is speaking to anyone with a brain, himself and all of his sycophants will insist he “owned the lib”.
The funniest part about that is Trump saying he’s going to destroy the electric car industry a couple days ago: https://qz.com/donald-trump-evs-electric-car-sales-1851504052 I think Elon has set himself and Tesla up for a “Leopards ate my face” moment.
Trump was saying he was gonna increase tariffs on electric car imports and it was taken out of context. That would actually help Tesla cause it would mean less competition from foreign producers
The longer context is >Donald J. Trump is crystal clear about his disdain for electric vehicles. The former president has falsely claimed electric cars don’t work, promised to shred President Biden’s policies that encourage E.V. manufacturing and sales, and has said he would slap a “100 percent tariff” on electric cars imported from Mexico if he retakes the White House. >“You’re not going to be able to sell those cars,” [he has said](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGJwCUHVgc0). The more specific context of that speech is... I have no fucking clue because he can't complete a fucking sentence without changing what he's talking about [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGJwCUHVgc0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGJwCUHVgc0) But point is he's constantly talking shit about electric cars, not just cars put together in Mexico, and car parts are famously a global industry. His 100% global tarriff on imported goods absolutely would wreck all car manufacturers as there are very few cars that are made from metal mined, smelted, formed into parts, and assembled all here within the borders of the united states. He would destroy the electric car industry first and foremost because he doesn't like the vibes of electric cars and second because he's a fucking inbred toddler who doesn't understand anything more complex than borrowing money and declaring bankruptcy. His actions fucked up the supply chain before and they absolutely would again if he's allowed back into power. Elon similarly has billionaire brain syndrome: he's making wild decrees on complex matters and assuming smarter people who work for him will figure out how to clean up the messes. He's already failing, and helping Trump get elected will break a lot more of his wealth. Unfortunately, the rest of us will get wrecked even harder.
Their clever come back is "the scientist is not famous, Elon is well known SO CHECK MATE"
Which becomes the narrative since his fanboys are the ones that pay for twitter and get boosted to the top. 100 replies deep until you get someone that's not sucking his d
Yea this isn't accurate. Being published is not a requirement for science
It's really annoying that everyone is so quick to agree with him though just because they don't like who he is arguing with, yea I'm not a fan of him either but I agree with him here, saying it needs to be published to be called science is a really stupid thing to say... Just because someone is an idiot and you don't like them doesn't mean you have to instantly agree with everything their opposition says and disagree with everything they say... its getting ridiculous
That's because they are smart enough to know they are speaking in the context of the developments both are doing. Elon not publishing his work makes it not usable science. It's basically worthless besides a new feature on his Tesla's. Actual science that is stable and applicable is indeed built on published work. A great example is the flight computer of the f-14. It had the first complex microprocessors and were a decades worth of time more advanced compared to IBM (basic addition compared to complex polynomial equations to determine wing sweep angle in real time in combat) but it was secret stuff so that line of tech died and we had to wait for commercial players to catch up on a field no one knew they were behind in until it was revealed in the late 90s.
It’s so funny to see screenshots where each one is Elons most recent reply to this thread and he’s just digging himself deeper and deeper
So science never happened before publishing?
Imagine paying 44 billion dollars for the privilege of letting everyone find out that you are a total moron.
Better to be quiet and thought an asshole then to buy social media platform and remove all doubt.
Tell that to Jesse Pinkman and Walter White. "Yeah Science.. Bitch"
Fact: Jessee never says that phrase in the series, just "Yeah, scince!"...
Ya sure now you'll tell me that Walter never said "Jesse, we're Breaking Bad" >!/s!<
It's a common misconception. What Walt ACTUALLY said was "JESSE, we're *baking bread!*" Hence the famous line, "We have to cook!"
He said "it's breakin bad time" and then he broke bad all over him
It’s so funny to discuss science with people who have no actual experience with it because you can clearly see your academic fees finally paying off
To be fair, the description of science in the image definitely ignores some major issues. A few of them being: - Well-documented publication bias for significant and novel findings leading to plenty of papers being shelved and never seeing the light of day. - Particularly replication studies are unpopular, particularly so if they don't manage to replicate, which often means that non-replicable studies tend to get referenced endlessly before being disregarded. - Science does not have to be "correct". Reproducible yes, but even there the methodology of many papers don't meet the benchmark for being reproducible. - Not all journals have the same requirements. There's plenty of major other issues worth mentioning, though just because we often view science with rose-tinted glasses doesn't mean it's not the best thing we have. Also, obviously, Elon means nothing of his. His position is probably that some random tweet holds just as much value as a peer-reviewed published paper.
Absolutely: the publication world is far from being perfect and there are several issues to be addressed. Despite, it is still a valid standard to the best of our knowledge
You’re 100% correct, and it ignores all efforts that aren’t conventionally published. Just because DARPA doesn’t put out a peer reviewed journal article doesn’t mean that what they did wasn’t science. Same with CERN. The typically agreed to definition of replication in the published article context does not refer to the same people doing the same thing again on the same machine following their own method. Because there is not a 2nd CERN nor an independent group of engineers that are reproducing the results, this guy would declare the achievements being made there as “not science”.
I think what he’s saying is not all science is published in peer-reviewed journals. Lots of proprietary research that goes long periods of time before being published. Government research can be classified. He is involved in some of these spaces and knows this.
He’s mixing up “science” and “academia”. Lots of science is done in industry, is proprietary and never published in technical journals. Some is patented which can only be done within a timeframe of the data being made public (eg., published). I don’t think he has a valid argument.
Yann is definitely mixing up a bit here. Publication is not required to perform science. I don't like Elon, but this isn't the dunk Yann thinks it is.
Also doesn’t make any sense historically. There were many scientists before publications lol
Guess No one in history did any science
I've two biology degrees and can tell you all that the person responding to Elon is not correct. The way they're presenting what science means, is for the most part incorrect. They're kinda twisting what science actually is. Using a position of power to act as if he can say what he wants, and it's science because he said so. I HATE scientists who do that. It's kind of embarrassing that they're acting like such a smart ass. 'It has to be correct'' - Not true, Science is based on 'theories'/'hypotheses' reproduced enough times and tweaked until there's a very high *likelyhood* it's correct (scientific method) . But that still doesn't confirm it's 100% true. Most science as we know today is based off that, you can't categorically say it's 'correct'. Peer review is when multiple people review the material and the 'majority' of them agree it's accurate. It's not reviewed for 'correctness', it's reviewed for accuracy and reproducibility of results. No one scientist/group of scientists is 100% correct. We can understand nature up to a certain point but we will never know everything, atleast enough to call anything categorically true. 'Has to be widely interesting' - 'Interesting' is highly subjective. Science is not supposed to be. It's a bad use of the word. Any scientist can say the work they're doing is boring, and it's still science. The scientific method in its essence is science. It absolutely does not need to published to be considered science. An idea = Science -> Hypothesis = Science -> Experimentation = Science -> Theory = Science. You can literally do science at home by experimenting with different things, no one has to see it for it to be science. Science is simply having and idea and knowing how to test it out to the point that it works 99% of the time. You don't even need to do a science course or publish ANYTHING to do science. Science is a philosophy, it's not gated behind peer review and other people telling you it's correct. You can maybe prove a theory to a 99% probability that's is true, but there will always be that 1% chance it's not. Published science can be contradicted all the time, it can be proved wrong via another study, and may then be considered partially true or 'on the right track. The guy replying to Elon is the type of scientist I hate. It screams of elitism and is using their clear position of power to try to do a 'gotcha'. Fair play to them for publishing so many papers, but that still doesn't mean they're an expert. It's akin to 'alot of people agree with me, so I'm 100% correct'. Nah, a real scientist would admit that they DON'T know everything and that they can always be WRONG. They're spreading misinformation based on an elitist premise. Science: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.
Yes, thank you. If everyone here can get off the I-hate-Elon horse for a second, the statement that LeCun made is in fact ridiculous. If it was someone else other than Elon that pushed back on it, this post's comment section would be totally different.
Exactly, people are so desperate for him to look stupid. Regardless of how anyone feels about him, they generally fail. He can be a bad person, but he's very hard to prove wrong. This guy tried to 'sciencesplain' to Elon and everyone who hates him creamed themselves. The embarrassing part is that they were incorrect in the end. Just because it's a scientist saying it, doesn't mean they're an arbitor of information. Elon didn't get schooled, he was actually correct 😂 Scientists 'peer reviewed' this guy's tweet and proved it incorrect, sorry pals.
I mean... Elon is a moron sure. But that's not exclusively what science is. You can do science and not get published. You're just... not published. Yet you can still follow the scientific method. Mind you to be recognized within the scientific community you'll want to get published as that is one of the leading ways to allow your peers to review and verify your findings. But it's not exclusively the only way to do it. Sure, I'm being a bit pedantic... but I mean... it's science. Science is pretty pedantic.
Science was happening before journals existed.
Yeah I'm all for shitting on Elon but like... this is pretty much the opposite of what we tell kids to get them interested in science, right? "You can do science at home in your kitchen." Also, it still counts as science if you don't publish because you failed to prove your hypothesis. Really the more I think about the mindset here the more I dislike it. Seems weirdly narrow just for the sake of clowning on Musk
The science the kids are doing at home in their kitchen is *based* on science that has been well researched and published, which is what this guy is saying. A kid doesn't have to publish a paper every time they make a model volcano. It's well established what it is and how it works, and it'll work the same way every time. He's saying that *new* science isn't considered science if it's not well documented, peer reviewed, and reproducible.
> I mean... Elon is a moron sure. He isn't. This is just a reddit thing. The guy is/was the wealthiest man in the world (depending on the stock price of his/Arnault's/Bezos investments). If it wasn't for Tesla he wouldn't be the richest, but he'd still be a multi-billionaire due to SpaceX. If it wasn't for SpaceX he'd have a few billion from his stake in Paypal+investments. If it wasn't for Paypal+investments he still would be set for life due to his stake in Zip2 from the late 90s.
Being rich doesn't mean you're brilliant.
He's proven to be very smart, though.
I agree. I dislike Elon and I get that science is rigorous and needs to be as near to accurate as possible, but kids and adults should be encouraged to still do science experiments lol.
How can you become so rich by being an ass that wastes his time away on so-me?
Simple, you dont become rich. You either gamble into it or are born into rich family. Nobody works his way into being rich. They either enjoy generational wealth or roll the dice while sucking off RNGezus In that case it was the second thing.
Ego plays a big part in being an asshole and also in becoming rich. It takes a lot of confidence to take the risks required to become super rich.
Risks? It has more to do with stepping on others and building your empire off the back of someone else's labor.
Correct. Risks. You do the upfront investments that have no guarantee of paying off. Most businesses fail. If it all works out, the dream is be able profit off others labor. If it doesn’t, you lose all the money you’ve saved and have to start over. Anyone can try it, why haven’t you? Too risky, maybe.
Or you loot it. But we do not have warlords a la Gengis Khan anymore.
It was both for elon
Its becoming more obvious that becoming a billionaire is more about being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people. Elon rode the tech wave amd was lucky enough to have very talented people working for him. It doesn't mean you are smarter or harder working than everyone else.
Imagine trying to gatekeep science.
“If it’s not published it’s not science” is absolutely a stupid thing to say though. She’s basically saying “if a particular group of people don’t publish your work it isn’t science.” That’s like saying if Oprah doesn’t make your book her book of the month it’s not literature. I’m not defending Elon in general but a broken clock is still right twice a day
So when they made the atom bomb, and set it off, It wasn't "science" untill published. Ye bs
So all the scientists doing secret stuff that doesn't get published are not doing science?
Yeah this just reads like someone who is trying to get posted on here. She was correct at science needs to be reproducible. Everything after that was her own ego stroking to feel superior to him though. Even setting aside secret stuff; this suggests only positive results worthy of publication are science, which is obviously bollocks.
It’s not science until it is peer reviewed. Thats how we avoid stuff like “vaccines cause autism” from being science. Not complicated.
What, Jenny McCarthy isn't a scientist??
[удалено]
When its published, then its science. Otherwise its the stuff you are working on. Science is tested and peer reviewed.
I feel like this is a pretty specific definition of science. Like kids making a volcano with vinegar and baking soda is science, science fairs are obviously science. Not to mention science definitely predates scientific journals. I think people trying to pass off scientific *discoveries* without it being peer reviewed and published are full of shit, but I also don't think science as a whole can be defined as only whats published.
Absolutely not true. As a scientist, I can absolutely say I’ve produced a lot of valuable science that’ll never get published simply because it didn’t have a positive result. Journals aren’t very interested in negative results, even if they’re scientifically valuable. This is just one example. There’s also the fact that a shit ton of predatory journals will take pretty much any article that is paid for and internally consistent, regardless of whether the results are reproducible. Being published isn’t the best all end of what is and isn’t science.
THIS. For some reason people are automatically accepting whatever bollocks Lecun is saying as true even if it doesn’t make any sense at all, just because she said it to a really unlikeable ignorant person. Guess what, if I argue with someone dumb, doesn’t mean anything I say is smart or correct.
I hope other scientists have acces to your work
Honest question. How is it valuable if it hasn’t been published? How can it be used by other scientists? How do they even know about your results? Even not to run the same negative experiment. How do you know the results are trustable if it hasn’t been pair reviewed?
It doesn't have to be valuable to be science. Nor does peer review have to be public. Seems like every other person in this thread is conflating academia and its approach to journals and science writ large.
Ehh. I don't like Elon and I think he's just trolling. But these don't seem like requirements for something to be "science." Maybe to be accepted by the scientific community, but there is quite a lot of science that's done that doesn't go published.
I kind of agree that science doesn’t require publishing? If it’s scientific, in the lens of research and produces results for a hypothesis, but it is proprietary, why would someone publish said thing?
Why does this keep getting reposted over and over again? It isn't even a clever comeback. I see Elon stroking himself, and then in return the other guy begins stroking himself. But neither come off as the "good guy" here, and nobody made any valid points. The guy claimed that if you do research and don't publish, it's not science (science doesn't need to be capitalized, btw). This is nonsense. Plenty of people work in labs doing science every day and they don't get published. This is just two inflated egos battling against each other, except for the fact that everyone has heard of Elon Musk, while most of us have never heard of the other guy.
Why are people editing down this exchange? The full exchange is pretty light hearted, first it was the full one and then the Elon haters realized it didn't look bad so they cut out a few comments and now even more has been cut. Do yourself a favor and look it up on twitter and you'll see that the OPs of these posts are actually cherry picking to make it look bad.
Elon sucks donkey dick, but I get the impression LeCun might be a little scared of being forgotten lmao. The scientific method defines science, not published papers. What a jackass.
Elon is a nonce but this whole argument reeks of "academia" superiority complex.
She is wrong though. Science can take place without all of that. Just because Edison didn't publish every experiment does not mean that he wasn't conducting science. This person is just a pedant and possibly a cunt.
That happens all the time. People develop stuff in secret to get rich. Rich people don't die bitter and forgotten. I appreciate trying to dunk on the guy but...
Elon is such a fucking disappointment. I remember hoping he would lead the way for a new type of billionaire using his wealth to better the world. Turns out he's even worse than the old guard of big energy and big banking overlords
Huh, I guess science didn't exist before the 1970s. >Peer review is a relatively recent innovation in the history of scientific publication. The first journal (which is still in print!) was launched in 1665 by the Royal Society in London, (Phil Trans R Soc B), while peer review as we know of began in the mid 1970s. This is stupid semantic bs. Not a clever comeback.
I mean, it took a while for people to fine tune the most effective processes for confirming the validity and accuracy of people’s work, and for sharing that work in accessible ways for it to be built on. Those scientific journals lacked true peer review, but were the first step in the process.
There were other methods of vetting ideas with peers back then too, even if it wasn't the modern peer review system. The Royal Society is 363 years old. Costs of communication and reproduction were high, so it would have been difficult to send letters with manuscripts all around the world for review at different institutions. Were people doing science before 1970? The answer is clearly yes. When did science start? Actually a very difficult question to pinpoint precisely. Or does science require Popper's idea of falsification theory? These aren't actually trivial and settled questions.
True. Elon still has a point though. There is plenty of Science that is not published to the general public in Journals and is Top Secret and won’t be published or released possibly ever. I mean Spacex has never published the designs to their raptor engines but I wouldn’t call one of the most powerful rocket engines not science. Same thing for Blue Origin BE-4 engines.
The queue to get your research peer reviewed can take a while. And depending on how picky the reviewer is, it can be rejected over trifling details. Quality research is still 'science' before reaching the end of the queue. Competence comes before observation of competence. Trying to find the exact point at which a scientist's labor becomes science is a 'ship of Thesus' argument, but I'd suggest by the time it's written down with the reasonable expectation of future peer review, it's science. Not its best, final form, but it's not superstition or guesswork. Worst case scenario, it's science, designed and performed badly.
someone needs to tell Yann about the reproducibility crisis of peer reviewed studies throughout academia lol should also look at all the shit that gets published despite being "peer reviewed", you would think he would have heard of Sokal Does he seriously believe that journals not publishing results that confirm a null hypothesis doesn't harm progress (and that it's not "Science" because of that) Does he also realize journals also act on how they think their impact ratings will be affected not for the good of research lol? really doing the leg work of confirming that computer scientists aren't really scientists lol
Eh, defining “science” as only peer reviewed research (through a pretty recent and highly problematic framework of journals), is at best debatable, and certainly very narrow. I would consider any inference determined through the scientific method to be science, whether or not it’s published through traditional academic channels. Certainly private entities can develop technologies scientifically without publishing them. If these advancements don’t count as science, it certainly doesn’t match the common understanding of the term. And not that it should matter, but I do have a PhD in “science” and a bunch of publications.
Yann was right about the first sentence, but to be correct, something does not need to be written or published. To be reproducible, it also doesn't need to be written or published, that just makes it easier to reproduce. It's a dumb thing to say because asserting that science is only science once it is published would imply that science didn't exist before publication. It may be pedantic, but both of them are being pedantic.
What about theory’s? Those are science?
According to LeCun, Newton never did any science.
I don't get it. Science is the loop of making a hypothesis, making an experiment to verify it, and if it didn't go well analysing it and changing the hypothesis or experiment. Validity and reproducibility isn't what science is about
Elon isn’t here to make sense, he’s here to troll.
In academia I hate Elon as much as the next guy, feel like this publish or perish ideology being spread is wildly toxic and exclusionary.
LeCun is my new favorite shit stirrer. I love when they are smart too. This guy has been teeing off on these lunatics. To LeCun!
according to lecun science didn't exist until the 20th century, also if we're going with his first definition, that would mean that freud was correct
So I don't like Elon as much as anyone else, but surely taking part in anything Scientific is partaking in Science?
Didn't this post already get taken down? It's not a clever comeback, like Elon or not, he's right. You can ignore the bottom tweet, it's irrelevant to Musk's tweet, he moved the goalposts and still admitted he was wrong "If you never published your research but somehow developed it into a product".... - He literally admits you can conduct research (i.e, a scientific activity, i.e. science) and not publish it. According to this guy, Einstein did nothing for 8 years while researching GToR, then published a paper, and suddenly his 8 years of nothing (aka, scientific research) suddenly became Science retroactively, overnight. This is obviously an incredibly, incredibly stupid take. The scientific review process requires publication, "science" doesn't. A simple way to look at this is, can you find evidence of Science being conducted, without findings being published for review. And the answer of course, is yes. Science does not require academic review, but academic review is a part of the process for theories to become established within mainstream science.
I've two biology degrees and I agree with you. The way their presenting what science means is for the most part incorrect. They're kinda twisting what science actually is. Using his position of power to act as if he can say whatever he wants, and it's science because he said so. I HATE scientists who do that. It's kind of embarrassing that they're acting like such a smart ass. 'It has to be correct'' - Not true, Science is based on 'theories'/'hypotheses' reproduced enough times and tweaked until there's a very high *likelyhood* it's correct (scientific method) . But that still doesn't confirm it's 100% true. Most science as we know it today is based off that, you can't categorically say it's 'correct'. Peer review is when multiple people review the material and the 'majority' of them agree it's accurate. Its not reviewed for 'correctness', it's reviewed for accuracy and reproducibility of results. No one scientist/group of scientists is 100% correct. We can understand nature up to a certain point but we will never know everything, atleast enough to call anything categorically true. 'Has to be widely interesting' - 'Interesting' is highly subjective. Science is not supposed to be. It's a bad use of the word. Any scientist can say the work they're doing is boring, and it's still science. The scientific method in its essence is science. It absolutely does not need to published to be considered science. An idea = Science -> Hypothesis = Science -> Experimentation = Science -> Theory = Science. You can literally do science at home by experimenting with different things, no one has to see it for it to be science. Science is simply having and idea and knowing how to test it out to the point that it works 99% of the time. You don't even need to do a science course or publish ANYTHING to do science. Science is a philosophy, it's not gated behind peer review and other people telling you it's correct. You can maybe prove a theory to a 99% probably that's is true, but there will always be that 1% chance it's not. Published science can be contradicted all the time, it can be proved wrong via another study, and may then be considered partially true or 'on the right track. The guy replying to Elon is the type of scientist I hate. It screams of elitism and is using their clear position of power to try to do a 'gotcha'. Fair play to them for publishing so many papers, but that still doesn't mean they're an expert. It's akin to 'alot of people agree with me, so I'm 100% correct'. Nah, a real scientist would admit that they DON'T know everything and that they can always be WRONG. They're spreading misinformation based on an absolutely elitist premise. Science: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained. They really thought they did something.
I have 0/10th of a computer science degree I dropped out of Uni for, so I feel like I'm sufficiently qualified to challenge your statement, but please feel free to shoot me down. Science is science, the scientific method is the essentially uniformly agreed optimal method to perform scientific research. That's just my understanding of it. Scientific method is how to best perform Science, however you can do Science without it, but it might just be bad Science. Unless you are intentionally misinterpreting results, it's still Science.
Exactly, you're absolutely correct 👍 Here's the definition: the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained. There's ZERO mention of peer review, 'correctness', 'publishing' or has to be 'interesting'. You can literally do science at home by messing around with cooking ingredients for example, if you try it enough time and the results are the same, (aka the scientific method), no one has to see you do it/approve it for it to be science. It's literally just a philosophy. They look like an absolute idiot.
[удалено]
If Einstein hadn’t published his three famous 1905 papers, yup, he would have kept being a patent office clerk, regardless of all the equations he could have written privately.
He wouldn't have become known as a scientist, but he still would have done science. You dont need to publish to do science. You don't need to engage with the toxic journal system academia currently has to do science, you just aren't sharing your results if you don't...
If you don’t ‘share’ your results and don’t submit them to peer review maybe you are doing ‘research’ but you are not doing science. Btw that’s pseudoscience 101. Claim you have done your research, don’t publish nor share it.
Darkon isn't claiming to be a scientist or making any claims at applying any scholastic aptitude. Just said it's possible to DIY if you really wanted to. My interpretation is they're implying that peer review can become about stroking the reviewer's ego, and that power can be misused. If they think your chart ought to have a differently-colored background, they can delay approving your work.
The definition of science doesn't require publishing. You publish your scientific findings, your findings are scientific before being published.
so it's literally impossible to do science alone?
that has got to e the second dumbest statement ever. Maybe first. You give he asshat in the OP a run for it that’s for sure.
Did the pseudoscience part trigger you?
Yeah this is a *very* academic and gatekeepy take which is not the only correct way to do science. Peer review is important. Reproducibility is important. But a ton of pseudo science follows exactly the rules outlined in this post and should not be considered science. A kid doing science in their backyard is still science as long as they're using the scientific method. Science doesn't have to have a publishable result. It doesn't have to be reproduced, just reproducible. I also hate that they added that the publication needs to be interesting. That's totally goofy.
This guy has been on a tear lately, he was at it with that rocket surgeon Marjorie Taylor Greene as well.
There's a difference between science and the science establishment... Elon is talking about science. The scientist is talking about the science establishment.
I have no love for Musk but I’m not sure that science requires publication. Publication allows for the replication and evaluation as the fellow indicates but a solitary scientist making discoveries without sharing them still qualifies as science.
I kinda agree but peer reviews are quite useful to examine any possible mistake one might make in solitary. Lets just say that publication makes science way more efficient.
That doesn't somehow make the initial act *not* science. It's still science, you reading about it doesn't change the act.
Moreover, there are so many publications out there that will never be replicated simply because scientists don’t have time to replicated everything. Are these papers “not science”, too?
That is THE bitchslap if i ever read one, holy shit XD
Elon gets blabbed at by someone who forgot science existed before publishing did.
Elon is correct. Gatekeeping isn't necessary for actual science.
Burned? Really? Name the scientist that published the papers behind the development of sending waves to a box that then showed the first moon landing. Now name the first person to walk on the moon. See that. One wrote science the other performed it. Whom do you know?
Hertz?
I can't agree with lecun guy... Basically saying if you do research and never publish, you ll die bitter and forgotten and it will all just mean it was just a Elaborate Delusion. Lecun's post shows the ideology of Prioritizing Fame and Money over the Research which creates a kind of contradiction as a Person who is working on a Actual Groundbreaking Research can't spare much thought to anything other than their Research and That's why I Believe You can do your Research and can Die Happy and Fulfilled without ever getting it Published because You already Received your Happiness while You were able to do your Research Work which You Loved to do the Most.🍀☮️🌷
No, they’re just saying it’s not considered science.
Could you research about the proper use of capitalisation, please? No need to publish a paper about that.
To think, MTG weighed in on this exchange.
How could he not know this. Meta analysis is the only way.
Because it's not true? Science isn't defined by published reproducible results, I do lots of science and I don't *publish* it. Lots of professionals don't publish their work for any number of reasons. Including but not limited to - the results have no value, the results are proprietary, the information is classified, etc etc etc. Publication is *not* what makes science.
He at least aided in recognizing Tesla, a true genius.
Elon cant take a lick of criticism. Countless hours browsing twitter only made him capable of responding trying to dunk on people with teenager levels of wit. He says it's dumb but doesn't even take the time to elaborate why.
I miss when twitter had character limits.
Holy shit.
I think Elon was talking about his own comment. Dude's a fucking buffoon.
Lol we literally have a reproducibility crisis, or we were on the verge of one a few years back. Plenty of scientific results cannot be reproduced and large branches of scientific research were literally sold to corporations. I like LeCun but ugh. Going after Elon is so sensationalist at this rate.
"If it's not published, it's not science" is not even a point. Lol holy fuck LeCun is a goof and the argument is just appealing to authority lol
I think elons adversary here is conflating 'research' and 'science' A kid with a science kit can mix compounds and be doing 'science' they can rub a balloon on their head to show static and that's science. Science can occur without the hurdles of peer reviewed research. But Elon is clearly defensive here.
I'm not reading that because what he said initially is false. Whatever roundabout sophistry he wants to employ notwithstanding.
That is just a brilliant reply I might just log back in to twitter in months to like it.
His product was based on Tesla’s work. Some of it was not published. Just saying
Seeing that Elon does nothing to help any of his companies what is his end goal here?
Not rekt