Live data from Hacker News

Why Fei-Fei Li and Yann LeCun are both betting on "world models"

entropytown.com

101–105 of 105 posts

Re: Why Fei-Fei Li and Yann LeCun are both betting on "world models"

#101
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s awesome, but I think we’re kinda talking past each other. I was responding to the claim that these models represent the largest wealth transfer from rich to poor in history. In order for that to be true, these models, closed or open, need to have value for average people. I don’t see that at all. Most use it as a glorified google, some are actively harmed by the sycophantic tendencies of the models. Edit: I’d…

Well that makes sense. Perhaps it is not a transfer of wealth to the poor, but a transfer of power to the middle class. I would say this: in the future I think we are gonna have all sorts of robotics that will be able to use LLMs and vision models and stuff to do basic reason and coordination to automate a ton of tasks. The average person is basically going to be able to fit a micro-factory in their house that can kn…

Just to clarify, are you starting from the point of view that AI simply does all the jobs we currently have? Were this the case, they’d also surely build robots and design AI themselves yeah? Labor as we know it wouldn’t exist anymore, because would simply be impossible to do useful work.

We’re willing to fork over money for things because those things require human effort to obtain, and we’d rather not expend it. In this new world, everything from the extraction of raw materials to the production of advanced technology would require no human effort. If our modern notions of property still persisted, however, then this doesn’t mean that people would simply have whatever they wanted. You need trees to get apples, you need a hole in the ground to get coal. Ultimately the limiting factor on everything would come down to land. Labor-time is replaced with land-time, because the land works itself. Not having land in this society would be like not having limbs or a brain in ours. You would have nothing to exchange in order to get the things you needed.

So I’d say that either the notion of property itself would change, or people without property would die until everyone had some amount of it, and people would generally occupy their time with various games that shuffled around the limited amount of land available as a proxy for social status. The flawed assumption that you make is that people would all have some amount of land in which to make their microfactory, but this would only be the case after lots of people died.

Re: Why Fei-Fei Li and Yann LeCun are both betting on "world models"

#102
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some of the most profitable models right now are in music, image, and video generation. Which companies are using these.models to run at a profit?

MidJourney, ElevenLabs, Suno, Kling

> MidJourney, ElevenLabs, Suno, Kling

Maybe I need to re-read reports; last I checked, none of those companies were operating at a profit.

Re: Why Fei-Fei Li and Yann LeCun are both betting on "world models"

#103
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that makes sense. Perhaps it is not a transfer of wealth to the poor, but a transfer of power to the middle class. I would say this: in the future I think we are gonna have all sorts of robotics that will be able to use LLMs and vision models and stuff to do basic reason and coordination to automate a ton of tasks. The average person is basically going to be able to fit a micro-factory in their house that can kn…

Just to clarify, are you starting from the point of view that AI simply does all the jobs we currently have? Were this the case, they’d also surely build robots and design AI themselves yeah? Labor as we know it wouldn’t exist anymore, because would simply be impossible to do useful work. We’re willing to fork over money for things because those things require human effort to obtain, and we’d rather not expend it. In…

>AI simply does all the jobs we currently have?

Not really. It would be good at doing generic, well-defined tasks but bad at doing specialized, novel tasks. You would still need some humans in the loop to get to the bottom of niche problems.

I agree that it would still go to hell without some type of Georgism or UBI or socialism. I agree that wealth will transfer to companies that control industrial means of production (like 3M or mining companies or intel or something), but it will also transfer out of companies whose moat is based on control of human capital (like accounting, software development, and law).

I think that even before AI, we are already seeing this sort of "land is everything" economy. Physical labor has largely been automated in the industrial revolution. Intellectual labor has been displaced not by newfangled AI mechanisms, but by information storage mediums and general pre-AI automation. If you are an artist, you are competing with all of the art that came before you. If you are an engineer, you are reinventing the wheel working on some sort of project that, if open sourced, would only need to be done once.

A major sense in which AI eliminates jobs is by acting as a bypass for copyright, it allows you to plausibly make a near-copy of something without a license. There is simply not an infinite amount of demand in the economy for intellectual labor. The thing that destroys the world as we know it is not so much AI, but information sharing and de-duplication of work. Open source would have destroyed the economy if AI didn't.

So everyone is working in the service sector now, it's unsustainable. Property prices keep going up, fertility rate keeps going down.

Re: Why Fei-Fei Li and Yann LeCun are both betting on "world models"

#104
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By capital game, do you mean money investment game or market ruler's game?

I mean both, and in AI today, they’re deeply intertwined. The “capital game” isn’t just about money—it’s about access to compute, talent, and time. Whoever has the resources can experiment, iterate, and potentially uncover the next big architecture. That financial power naturally translates into influence—control over the market, narrative, and ecosystem. In practice, the investment game and the market ruler’s game o…

Where does it lead to?

Re: Why Fei-Fei Li and Yann LeCun are both betting on "world models"

#105
post #59
post #47

LLMs are parameter based representations of linguistic representations of the world. Relative to robot predictive control problems, they are low dimensional and static. They are batch trained using supervised learning and are not designed to manage real time shifts in the external world or the reward space. They work because they operate in abstract, rule governed spaces like language and mathematics. They are ill su…

See, I don't get why people say that the world is somehow more complex than the world of mathematics. I think that is because people don't really understand what mathematics is. A computer game for example is pure mathematics, minus the players, but the players can also be modelled just by their observed digital inputs / outputs. So the world of mathematics is really the only world model we need. If we can build a se…

John Von Neumann would disagree with you :

"If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is."

Post reply on HN