Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Yann LeCun: ChatGPT is 'not particularly innovative'

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 190 posts

Re: Yann LeCun: ChatGPT is 'not particularly innovative'

#161

Post by jmugan »

rafaelero wrote: post #143
jmugan wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we will see AGI. But for the AI to be robust, it has to interact with the world, even if it is a simulated one. We need to build an AI that knows what a toddler knows before we can build one that understands wikipedia.

Human text does interact with the real world, so I don't see the limitation. Adding more modalities (vision, sound, etc.) probably will increase performance, and I think this is where we are heading, but it's silly to say that any one of these modalities are not grounded in reality. It's like saying humans can't understand reality because we can't see infrared rays. I mean, yeah?, but it's not the only way of making…

Language is a representation medium for the world, it isn't the world itself. When we talk, we only say what can't be inferred because we assume the listener has a basic understanding of the dynamics of the world (e.g., if I push a table the things on it will also move). Having an AI watch youtube and enabling it to act out what it sees in simulation would give it that grounding. We are heading that direction. So, I agree ChatGPT is awesome. I don't believe it understands what it is saying, but it can if it trains by acting out what it sees on Youtube.

Re: Yann LeCun: ChatGPT is 'not particularly innovative'

#162

Post by Turing_Machine »

ryanSrich wrote: post #14
cl42 wrote: post #12

It's amazing how many researchers underestimate the importance of UX and design. Personally, seeing non-technical people using prompts for the first time -- and getting results that make sense -- is so incredible. Their eyes light up, they are surprised, and they want to keep playing with it. Amazing! A sizeable part of the population just got access to an incredibly complex AI model and can play with it. What a coll…

> It's amazing how many researchers underestimate the importance of UX and design. Yes. Also the fact that ChatGPT's UX and design leaves much to be desired. They could add/improve the product in so many obvious ways. I wonder if they either 1.) don't care, or 2.) have plans to, but are holding off until they take on a subscription fee.

Isn't there an API?

Re: Yann LeCun: ChatGPT is 'not particularly innovative'

#163

Post by Turing_Machine »

jmugan wrote: post #159
Turing_Machine wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's because ChatGPT's knowledge doesn't come through interaction with the world. We don't interact with the world directly, either. All we have are signals mediated through our nervous system.

Sure, but what happens when you touch a hot stove?

The built-in weights in your brain are modified to discourage you from doing that again?

Re: Yann LeCun: ChatGPT is 'not particularly innovative'

#164

Post by nightski »

arp242 wrote: post #152
nightski wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it's childish, and I have no idea why Yann decided this needed to be shouted on Twitter. I've lost a lot of respect for him over this.

According to the article: "LeCun made his remarks about OpenAI in response to a question during the colloquium posed by New York Times journalist Cade Metz. Metz asked if Meta's AI team, FAIR, which LeCun built, will ever be identified in the public mind with breakthroughs the way that OpenAI is." It seems to me "well actually, ChatGPT isn't really the breakthrough you think it is" is an appropriate response. He wasn…

He's been tweeting quite a bit about it beyond what you referenced which was more what I was referring to.

Re: Yann LeCun: ChatGPT is 'not particularly innovative'

#165

Post by TchoBeer »

oxfordmale wrote: post #153
fnordpiglet wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you used chatgpt much? I asked your prompt: Do dogs give birth to babies? > Dogs give birth to puppies. I had a long discussion about the expansion do space and the Hubble constant, and tried to trick it in a variety of ways. It was correct in everything even though it wasn’t able to go into proofs and likewise. I then tried to convince it that the universe began as a small potato and wasn’t able to do it withou…

Yes, I have tried ChatGPT, and it told me dogs do not give birth to babies. However, ChatGPT doesn't provide deterministic answers and improves responses over time. Many of the internet examples no longer work. I asked, "If a woman gives birth to a baby in 9 months, how many months does a dog take to give birth to a baby." It answered, "Dogs do not give birth to babies." Currently, it answers, "On average, a dog's ge…

>I asked, "If a woman gives birth to a baby in 9 months, how many months does a dog take to give birth to a baby." It answered, "Dogs do not give birth to babies."

to be fair, I'd probably say the same thing lol. "Baby" in this context was already primed to mean "human child."

>Q: If a woman takes nine months to give birth to a baby, how long does it take a billion women to give birth to one baby?

>A: It would take approximately 2.7 million years for a billion women to give birth to one baby.

I asked the same and it answered "It would still take 9 months for a billion women to give birth to one baby, as the length of time it takes for a woman to give birth is not affected by the number of women giving birth simultaneously."

Re: Yann LeCun: ChatGPT is 'not particularly innovative'

#166

Post by jmugan »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #163
jmugan wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but what happens when you touch a hot stove?

The built-in weights in your brain are modified to discourage you from doing that again?

Right. Those are tied via evolution to the dynamics of the physical world. We can simulate the physical world and learn from that, but there needs to be a there there. Language assumes the listener already has that understanding.

Re: Yann LeCun: ChatGPT is 'not particularly innovative'

#167

Post by jmugan »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #163
jmugan wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but what happens when you touch a hot stove?

The built-in weights in your brain are modified to discourage you from doing that again?

Sorry, I meant to say that it hurts. That's the dynamics of the world I'm talking about.

Re: Yann LeCun: ChatGPT is 'not particularly innovative'

#168

Post by hgsgm »

Lambdanaut wrote: post #102
hbrn wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ChatGPT has no idea what they're talking about. It lacks it's own thought and heuristic patterns, and only gives you the most-likely response to your prompt Funny thing is, same could be said about lots of people. Try listening to any political debate. Which leads me to believe that the thing that's missing from AI is the same thing that we miss in those political debates: ability to explain and justify your own th…

There's the argument that any AI built on silicon is doomed to be analogous to the Chinese Room* because it is reducible to its parts. It's interesting that I am also reducible to my atomic parts. I may be a Chinese Room that has not yet experienced fully looking down at my self. I don't have enough self-recursive input yet to see through the illusion. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#Chinese_room_thou...

Searle didn't understand his own model. The Chinese Room is intelligent, even if the librarian isn't.

Re: Yann LeCun: ChatGPT is 'not particularly innovative'

#169

Post by hgsgm »

visarga wrote: post #120
fnordpiglet wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it weren’t that remarkable, how come Siri, alexa, and whatever google calls it’s unused voice assistant are so useless? If it were not a substantial advance, why are chatbots so useless? The reality is, if Alexa had half the ability to “understand” as chatgpt it wouldn’t be nearly as frustrating. It’s not like Amazon, apple, and google haven’t dumped metric tons of investment into these things. Y’all simply have l…

It's more pragmatic than that. Google can afford to run a 300M weights model on every search or click, but can't afford a 175B generative model for the same thing. Generative models require a forward pass per token, all done serially, while embedding or classification models only need one pass no matter the length of the input. It's too expensive for Google.

How could it be too expensive? OpenAI charges a penny per response. That's cheap enough to wrap in a premium subscription or product price.

Re: Yann LeCun: ChatGPT is 'not particularly innovative'

#170

Post by hgsgm »

oxfordmale wrote: post #153
fnordpiglet wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you used chatgpt much? I asked your prompt: Do dogs give birth to babies? > Dogs give birth to puppies. I had a long discussion about the expansion do space and the Hubble constant, and tried to trick it in a variety of ways. It was correct in everything even though it wasn’t able to go into proofs and likewise. I then tried to convince it that the universe began as a small potato and wasn’t able to do it withou…

Yes, I have tried ChatGPT, and it told me dogs do not give birth to babies. However, ChatGPT doesn't provide deterministic answers and improves responses over time. Many of the internet examples no longer work. I asked, "If a woman gives birth to a baby in 9 months, how many months does a dog take to give birth to a baby." It answered, "Dogs do not give birth to babies." Currently, it answers, "On average, a dog's ge…

> For example, for a performance review, you can give it bullet points and ask to write a review.

Please don't do this. It obfuscates what you are trying to communicate. You are harming your communication and your relationship.

Post reply on HN