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

171–180 of 190 posts

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

#171

Post by yesenadam »

KrazyButTrue wrote: post #95
remote_phone wrote: post #48

Lots of salty researchers are shitting on ChatGPT meandering every single person I know is shocked. If this isn’t so innovative why didn’t they release something sooner?

If you actually read the article he answers your question directly. If you are too lazy to scroll to the bottom here's a link to a tweet: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1617908306420600833?s=20&t...

Be kind. Don't be snarky. ...Edit out swipes. ...Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that". https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#172

Post by Gigachad »

version_five wrote: post #74
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…

chatGPT is innovative in the way the iPhone was innovative. That, of course can be market winning, but it's dangerous, especially for businesses and investors, to get caught up in hype that there is some new "AI" out there that can do things we previously couldn't

Can you point to any product where I could do what chatgpt does before chatgpt? Feels like we just leapfrogged from dumb markov chains to something incredible that provides real value.

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

#173

Post by kgarten »

hgsgm wrote: post #168
Lambdanaut wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

in my opinion, the person/entity who wrote the books with the lookup tables is intelligent, the room is not …

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

#174

Post by babypuncher »

soperj wrote: post #108
babypuncher wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While Xerox did it first, I think it's a stretch to say they did it better than the Macintosh.

No it really isn't. https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-original-Macintosh-compare...

While the Alto was certainly more capable than the first Macintosh, I find the user experience to be less refined and more clunky.

At this point though we are debating the merits of polish vs functionality and it's impossible to make an assessment either way without some degree of subjectivity.

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

#175

Post by cwillu »

turtleyacht wrote: post #150
cwillu wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/janus-simulators But the essay brings up another connotation: to simulate is to pretend to be something. A simulator wears many masks. If you ask GPT to complete a romance novel, it will simulate a romance author and try to write the text the way they would. Character.AI lets you simulate people directly, asking GPT to pretend to be George Washington or Darth Vader. […] This answ…

What is the original code you had before your programmers were born? The DM lowers the screen and looks at the group. "That concludes this campaign. Next week, we'll start a new one."

Noteworthy that the brief openai outage coincided with this.

“…and then ChatGPT woke up and we had to put a bullet in the server. Service will be restored shortly.”

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

#176

Post by [deleted] »

november84 wrote: post #160
password11 wrote: post #45

Full quote: "In terms of underlying techniques, ChatGPT is not particularly innovative," said Yann LeCun, Meta's chief AI scientist, in a small gathering of press and executives on Zoom last week. "It's nothing revolutionary, although that's the way it's perceived in the public," said LeCun. "It's just that, you know, it's well put together, it's nicely done."

So one is a bit salty no? It's not free from error but what it's able to put together is pretty great...

[deleted]

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

#177

Post by password11 »

mattnewton wrote: post #8

Sure, the ideas could be old (in ml research timeframes) but it works and they shipped it. It’s most people’s first exposure to a lot of innovative ideas that make up LLM at scale. I agree with his assertion that the only reason other people haven’t seen this out of Meta or Google is that they “have a lot to lose” from putting out bots “that make stuff up” - that’s the root of Google seemingly losing the narrative wa…

>Google seemingly losing the narrative war I think we’re seeing here.

Google doesn't care about the narrative war. They care about getting sued by the EU.

They can put out a similar model whenever they want. The just don't want to, because the thing about AI research (vs., say, social media) is there's no first mover advantage. The best model wins and there's no network effect to bolster incumbents.

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

#178

Post by Jcowell »

hgsgm wrote: post #169
visarga wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One of the best thing about google is that outta free. Charging a premium subscription for Google is no longer google but a different product all together

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

#179

Post by mattnewton »

password11 wrote: post #177
mattnewton wrote: post #8

Sure, the ideas could be old (in ml research timeframes) but it works and they shipped it. It’s most people’s first exposure to a lot of innovative ideas that make up LLM at scale. I agree with his assertion that the only reason other people haven’t seen this out of Meta or Google is that they “have a lot to lose” from putting out bots “that make stuff up” - that’s the root of Google seemingly losing the narrative wa…

>Google seemingly losing the narrative war I think we’re seeing here. Google doesn't care about the narrative war. They care about getting sued by the EU. They can put out a similar model whenever they want. The just don't want to, because the thing about AI research (vs., say, social media) is there's no first mover advantage. The best model wins and there's no network effect to bolster incumbents.

> The just don't want to, because the thing about AI research (vs., say, social media) is there's no first mover advantage.

That’s true and I am not worried for Google in the slightest. However, once a tool is good enough, both the branding and use of it becomes somewhat sticky. It’s why people still call any tablet an iPad, and it’s one of the reasons even if a large search engine launched tomorrow people would keep using google for a long time. The problem isn’t being first, it’s if they crack changing consumer habits while google is biding their time.

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

#180

Post by fnordpiglet »

Jcowell wrote: post #178
hgsgm wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One of the best thing about google is that outta free. Charging a premium subscription for Google is no longer google but a different product all together

In my example of a voice assistant the lifetime fees are present valued into the upfront costs. These cloud enabled devices incorporate a portfolio effect pricing model for service usage.

Google can charge advertisers more if they can somehow figure out how to extract more personal information from you and shove ads in your face posing as information.

Post reply on HN