Wish you the best.

“Wait longer” is not a blank check. In 2026, with Meta-scale talent, data, and compute, serious ideas should show strong intermediate results, not just theory.

Time is necessary, but it is not evidence. More compute does not replace insight, but it does speed up falsification.

So no, skepticism is not naive. If a research program still cannot point to a clear empirical advantage after years, “it just needs more time” stops sounding like science and starts sounding like insulation from the scoreboard.

This means sponsorships, millions spent on training etc.

Model identifiers are often unique to specific stores, because they carry laptop configurations made just for them.

Apple, AmazonBasics, and a few others, by contrast, understand the consumer and offer a very limited—though often configurable—selection.

He joined Facebook (now Meta) in December 2013. That's over 12 years of access to one of the largest AI labs in the world, near-unlimited compute, and some of the best researchers money can buy.

He introduced I-JEPA in 2023, nearly 3 years ago. It was supposed to represent a fundamental shift in how machines learn — moving beyond generative models toward a deeper, more structured world understanding.

And yet: I-JEPA hasn't decisively beaten existing models on any major benchmark. No Meta product uses JEPA as a core approach. The research community hasn't adopted it — the field keeps pushing on LLMs and diffusion models. There's been no "GPT moment" for JEPA, no single result that made its value obvious to everyone.

So the question becomes simple: how many years, how many resources, and how many failed proof-of-concepts does it take before we're allowed to judge whether an idea actually works?

If he still hasn’t produced anything truly meaningful after all these years at Meta, when is that supposed to happen? Yann LeCun has been at Facebook/Meta since December 2013.

Your chronological sequence is interesting, but it refers to a time when the number of researchers and the amount of compute available were a tiny fraction of what they are today.

The giant seed round proves investors were willing to fund Mira Murati, not that the company had built anything durable.

Within months, it had already lost cofounder Andrew Tulloch to Meta, then cofounders Barret Zoph and Luke Metz plus researcher Sam Schoenholz to OpenAI; WIRED also reported that at least three other researchers left. At that point, citing it as evidence of real competitive momentum feels weak.

So I keep wondering: if his idea is really that good — and I genuinely hope it is — why hasn’t it led to anything truly groundbreaking yet? It can’t just be a matter of needing more data or more researchers. You tell me :-D

It's quite bad not having a port forward when filesharing though.

wt.exe https://apps.microsoft.com/detail/9n0dx20hk701?hl=en-US&gl=U...

pwsh.exe https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/scripting/insta...

is really powerful, it has finally driven me away from conemu, which was really bad with claude (lots of fonts problems).

I'm just saying that AI critics like to say that they don't like AI, and to prove their point they constantly move up their definition of "good enough", and when and AI reaches that objective, they change their definition of good enough.

They never surrender.

these links are ok:

https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/comments/1r04f0x/official_ferr...

https://www.ferrari.com/en-EN/auto/ferrari-luce

Thanks anthropic

doesn't work.

Forever grateful for this series anyway.

Any way to use them, or do I have to go through markdown format?

They have a reason for this choice. I remember studying it at university—the professor said that when people have intimacy, there's no need for doors.

But what if you have a guest? And what if your poop stinks?

Incredibly low-IQ people.