The ironic thing of course is that Yann has not been at the forefront of AI for many many years (and Gary, of course, never has). Facebook's research has failed to rival Google Brain, DeepMind, OpenAI, and groups at top universities.
So to the extent that Yann is copying Gary's opinions, it's because they both converge at a point far behind the leaders in the field. Yann should be much more concerned than Gary about that.
Behind? Why do you say so? If anything, they may both (now) be a bit ahead of the curve. AFAICT, while the idea of neuro-symbolic integration is pretty old (Ron Sun, among others, was talking about it ages ago), the idea is still far from widely pursued by the mainstream thread of AI research.
In either case, it's interesting to finally start to see more weight accumulating behind this particular arrow. But I've long been on record as advocating that neuro-symbolic integration is a critical area of research for AI, so I'm a bit biased.
You present this statement as fact when it is still highly debated. A lot of researchers will claim a popular new approach is a reformulation of experiments they did X years ago. It's usually best to see it as a spectrum where some idea are on the same axis, where one end is "totally different" and the other is "renamed approached".