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

Let me clear a huge misunderstanding

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 109 posts

Re: Let me clear a huge misunderstanding

#81

Post by bamboozled »

codeflo wrote: post #31

I mean, there's a point here. Even in the videos OpenAI shows as "successes", you can spot uncanny coherence mistakes. There's one where a forklift morphs into one that's turned 90 degrees. The previous frame looks a bit ambiguous about the direction the squarish shape was pointing at, and somehow what happens for several seconds before that wasn't a strong enough signal for the model. And in the "failure" videos, we…

Someone on here was claiming Sora understands physics, while I was watching steaming frozen snow, the lady in red skating down the street in Tokyo on wet concrete and a bunch of people having lunch next to miniature people visiting a mini market stand made from a bike.

Definitely felt like something was off to me.

Re: Let me clear a huge misunderstanding

#82

Post by bamboozled »

kgwgk wrote: post #35
bonzaidrinkingb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've seen the demos of a couple holding hands and walking, or the museum shots where all the paintings maintain coherence, or a woman temporarily obscuring a street sign. Or you haven't seen those demos. Either way...

If the "couple holding hands and walking" one is the "Beautiful, snowy Tokyo city is bustling. ..." look at the traffic on the left side of the frame: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezaMd4l_5kw We also have the spontaneous creation and annihilation of wolves and the shape-shifting chair: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jspYKxFY7Sc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfbImB0_rKY

That chair is fucking wild.

The more I watch the cherry blossom one, the more I see how wrong it is, even the fact there is Cherry blossoms in the middle of winter is just totally wack. I've seen it snow in Tokyo before during spring when the cherry blossoms were out, but you don't have a foot of snow on the roof like in the clip.

Edit: I know the prompt asked for the cherry blossoms in snow, but it's still a wild amount of snow which is somehow not covering the trees.

Re: Let me clear a huge misunderstanding

#83

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

throw310822 wrote: post #77
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying if you want to apply it outside human experience you need an concrete definition otherwise you can call anything you like 'understanding' which is what's happening.

If for you the definition of "understanding" is "something that only humans can do" then your statement about AI is totally pointless: of course AI doesn't "understand", but at the same time it might do something that is perfectly equivalent and that "only machines can do".

> something that is perfectly equivalent

So go ahead and define it, in concrete terms, external to humans. It can't be equivalent unless there is a definite basis for equivalence. Cat videos don't cut it.

My point is that understanding, as we know it, only exists in the human mind.

If you want to define something that is functionally equivalent but implemented in a machine, that is absolutely fine, but don't point to something a machine does and say "look it's understanding!" without having a concrete model of what understanding is, and how that machine is, in concrete terms, achieving it.

Re: Let me clear a huge misunderstanding

#84

Post by fancyfredbot »

It's a shame that Yann didn't explicitly say what the misunderstanding was or clear it up.

I think he's claiming that the misunderstanding is that SORA understands the physical world. He goes on to say that generating the next frame conditional on some action is much harder than generating an entire plausible video. This just doesn't make sense to me. Every frame in a plausible video clearly needs to be conditioned on the actions shown in previous frames.

The tweet is mostly incoherent and I'm left assuming he's upset about SORA and wants to say his ideas are/were better but hasn't managed to express why in a meaningful way.

Re: Let me clear a huge misunderstanding

#85

Post by ml-anon »

benreesman wrote: post #75
ml-anon wrote: post #49

LeCun is such a hack and is guilty exactly the same hype as OpenAI. Firstly his insistence on “self supervised learning” which is just a wrong and unhelpful rebranding of existing methodologies. Followed by talking about VicREG as if it’s a meaningful contribution and not just hacked together crap which is not only theoretically unfounded but plain nonsensical. Followed again by his “JEPA” work which again is just a…

He won the fucking Turing. I think you can rock your CV alongside “he’s such a hack”. I’ve met the guy a few times (briefly), and I’m aware of his general vibe. I don’t agree with him about everything, but “hack” is absurd, and I’m not posting about who is a hack (or even a crook) under a burner alt. What’s your Fields medal for?

Just because he made a good thing decades ago doesn’t mean he has any clue about what is going on now.

Many of us actually work in the field and are tired of the mindless hype and self promotion. LeCun is just upset people aren’t hyping his crap rather than OpenAIs.

But I’m sure you can give a good reason why he calls it self supervised instead of unsupervised and JEPA instead of BYOL or data2vec and what his actual contributions to the field of modern representation learning are.

Pauling had a Nobel, didn’t stop him being a crank about vitamin C.

Re: Let me clear a huge misunderstanding

#86

Post by throw310822 »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #83
throw310822 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If for you the definition of "understanding" is "something that only humans can do" then your statement about AI is totally pointless: of course AI doesn't "understand", but at the same time it might do something that is perfectly equivalent and that "only machines can do".

> something that is perfectly equivalent So go ahead and define it, in concrete terms, external to humans. It can't be equivalent unless there is a definite basis for equivalence. Cat videos don't cut it. My point is that understanding, as we know it, only exists in the human mind. If you want to define something that is functionally equivalent but implemented in a machine, that is absolutely fine, but don't point to…

Nope, sorry. You said you have no idea of what understanding is, except that by definition it can only be done by humans.

Fine. Then I posit the existence of understanding-2, which is exactly identical to understanding, whatever it is, except for the fact that it can only be done by machines. And now I ask you to prove to me that AI doesn't have understanding-2.

This is just to show you the absurdity of trying to claim that AI doesn't have understanding because by definition only humans have it.

Re: Let me clear a huge misunderstanding

#87

Post by Sai_ »

cactusplant7374 wrote: post #47

It's interesting how far behind xAI already is in the current market. Their current advantage of having a corpus of text isn't even relevant.

Just a random thought - maybe Musk was/is so hell bent on removing censorship because he wants more robust data, covering a larger array of thoughts, for his AI plans.

Re: Let me clear a huge misunderstanding

#88

Post by Jensson »

bonzaidrinkingb wrote: post #29
PoignardAzur wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> long-term scene coherence, FWIW none of the video models released so far demonstrate any object coherence whatsoever, which suggests they don't have the higher level capabilities you mention yet. In Sora, as soon as an object is obstructed by an obstacle or goes offscreen, it's likely to disappear or be radically transformed.

You've seen the demos of a couple holding hands and walking, or the museum shots where all the paintings maintain coherence, or a woman temporarily obscuring a street sign. Or you haven't seen those demos. Either way...

In the couple holding hands videos you see the people walking in front duck into a wall and disappear, the girl in front walks into the fence and disappears, another girl walks straight through that fence. These aren't just issues with forgetting, it completely doesn't understand how things works. It draws a fence but then doesn't understand that people can't walk through it.

Or the video with the dog, that dog phases straight through those window shutters as if they weren't there and were rendered in layers rather than 3d. It doesn't understand the scenes it draws at all, it had shadows from those shutters so they were drawn to have depth, but that dog then were rendered on top of those shutters anyway and moved straight through them. You even see their shadows overlap since the shadow part is treated differently apparently, so it "knows" they overlap but also renders the dog on top, telling me that it doesn't really know any of that at all and is just based on guessing based on similar looking data samples.

And this in videos handpicked because they were especially good. We should expect the videos we are able to generate to be way worse than the demo in general. They didn't even manage to make a dog that moves between windows without such bugs, that was the best they got and even that was had a very egregious error for a very short clip.

Re: Let me clear a huge misunderstanding

#89

Post by inference-lord »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #83
throw310822 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If for you the definition of "understanding" is "something that only humans can do" then your statement about AI is totally pointless: of course AI doesn't "understand", but at the same time it might do something that is perfectly equivalent and that "only machines can do".

> something that is perfectly equivalent So go ahead and define it, in concrete terms, external to humans. It can't be equivalent unless there is a definite basis for equivalence. Cat videos don't cut it. My point is that understanding, as we know it, only exists in the human mind. If you want to define something that is functionally equivalent but implemented in a machine, that is absolutely fine, but don't point to…

...and measurable IMO :) We need a way to know how much something understands.

Re: Let me clear a huge misunderstanding

#90

Post by inference-lord »

throw310822 wrote: post #77
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying if you want to apply it outside human experience you need an concrete definition otherwise you can call anything you like 'understanding' which is what's happening.

If for you the definition of "understanding" is "something that only humans can do" then your statement about AI is totally pointless: of course AI doesn't "understand", but at the same time it might do something that is perfectly equivalent and that "only machines can do".

I guess you understand wolves, do you think this video demonstrates understanding of how wolves work?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jspYKxFY7Sc

Post reply on HN