I feel like Lecun did a poor job of localizing the technique relative to any philosophy, or really explaining what it does for a nontechnical audience.

Saying he gives talks to philosophers, or saying this pushes philosophy to its limits doesn't fix the problem that lecun does a poor job - in this presentation - of philosophically motivating the proposal.

Perhaps I am wrong, and you can point out exactly how lecun explicates the philosophy in the presentation - perhaps it's really embedded in the maths, which I have not appreciated.

Appealing to lecun's authority won't fix the opacity of the presentation. But interpreting it can help! Are you up for it?