Live data from Hacker News

AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

bbc.com

31–40 of 80 posts

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#31

Ha before reading the article I thought "this must be an interview of Lecun". A bitter scientist that hates he was left behind the revolution.

Considering all of the great research that has come from his labs (eg. DINO, Segment Anything) I don’t think that’s fair (no pun intended).

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But _AI today_ is heavily subsidized by investor capital in the same way investors subsidized social/mobile/big data/VR/blockchain in the past. It's not unlikely "AI" would get a soft taboo in the same way as if you just presented a mobile-first, big-data driven, VR social media app today. Which, judging by the terrible PR optics AI has nowadays, could unfortunately seep into academia too. Fund grants wouldn't want t…

You're mixing different things. Mobile first is integrated into new services to the point that they either are mobile first, or they have a design system which includes mobile as a surface. VR has a wide user base (MQ2 sold as well as the original Xbox) and is involved in both manufacturing design and simulation, and is hardly an academic taboo, even if the "main" topic of discussion is elsewhere right now. Blockchai…

Fair enough. Mobile and social became ubiquitous and are now table stakes. But my problem with VR and blockchain---even allowing for the fact/assumption that they are still relevant---is that they never lived up to their hype. They never became ubiquitous as mobile and social. They don't inspire investor confidence like they did in the past, if at all. AI, if it survives the public and regulatory backlash, could be headed to the same understudy role.

I'm using "AI" broadly here even if the current investor darling is just LLMs because, well, the term AI has been front and center of all promotions and investors and the general consumer public isn't really a discerning bunch. So I stand by my prediction that a "soft taboo" is likely where investors and consumers shy away from anything even remotely AI. The consumer backlash has arguably already started.

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#33

Besides "smart", the headline also conflates AI with LLMs. The real, non-clickbait title is "Yann LeCun, founder of AMI Labs, is developing a new AI system"

Everyone nowadays seems to only think of AI as LLMs or maybe also stable diffusion. People want to ban games with AI in them, when by definition every NPC is following some kind of AI algorithm.

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But _AI today_ is heavily subsidized by investor capital in the same way investors subsidized social/mobile/big data/VR/blockchain in the past. It's not unlikely "AI" would get a soft taboo in the same way as if you just presented a mobile-first, big-data driven, VR social media app today. Which, judging by the terrible PR optics AI has nowadays, could unfortunately seep into academia too. Fund grants wouldn't want t…

You're mixing different things. Mobile first is integrated into new services to the point that they either are mobile first, or they have a design system which includes mobile as a surface. VR has a wide user base (MQ2 sold as well as the original Xbox) and is involved in both manufacturing design and simulation, and is hardly an academic taboo, even if the "main" topic of discussion is elsewhere right now. Blockchai…

> MQ2 sold as well as the original Xbox

I'd be interested in the "retention rate" for these two products. I wouldn't be surprised if the average original Xbox was used 2 orders of magnitude more than the average Meta Quest, which is collecting dust on some shelf.

I'd wager the typical MQ2 owner is someone with 20 hours of Beat Saber on it and 5000 hours total on Steam or PS.

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#36

Besides "smart", the headline also conflates AI with LLMs. The real, non-clickbait title is "Yann LeCun, founder of AMI Labs, is developing a new AI system"

It is just so bizarre compared to my everyday experience also. I never ask Opus or Fable a question and think "what a stupid response". Quite the opposite. It has actually raised the bar of what I consider an intelligent response to my inquiry. So much so that most responses from humans on most subjects to most forms of inquiry seem stupid and not really thought out.

I’m sure you’re very intelligent and capable so I suspect we work in different problem spaces if you have not seen this, but I definitely think the responses are at times very very junior and I find myself having to explain first principles. Fable less so, but Opus routinely will make very naive assumptions about retry logic, protocols it supposedly has training material on, and it will very often miss the forest for the trees.

This isn’t exactly saying how stupid anyone is but I’d definitely have been concerned about a human’s reasoning ability and understanding of logic if they’d given me similar answers.

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#38

Yann LeCun was saying 3 years ago that because token generation is auto-regressive, its mathematically impossible to generate a long stream of coherent tokens, because errors amplify exponentially. and then models learned that they can back track and error correct so much for "mathematically impossible..."

You insinuate here AI "learned".

I doubt that this was AI self-improvement.

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#39

Yann LeCun was saying 3 years ago that because token generation is auto-regressive, its mathematically impossible to generate a long stream of coherent tokens, because errors amplify exponentially. and then models learned that they can back track and error correct so much for "mathematically impossible..."

Also, almost any argument against LLM intelligence also applies to humans. I very commonly see someone make some small mistake and end up going in the wrong direction, “accumulating stupid” as they go, sometimes for years.

Humans can learn.

AI can not.

For those disagreeing: please explain how a static hardware can learn.

Re: AI is 'not smart' so what's next in artificial intelligence?

#40
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess it is a sign we are re-evaluating what makes humans special. Always has been: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect Tangentially: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox

While we should be careful of a bias, it is also a good practice in the scientific method to review definitions that may have been not precise enough. For example, initially, a "planet" was just a big body in space. Then when people started to see more and more nuances, the definition just refined, and some objects stopped being called "planet". I would not be surprised if there is a bias that pushes some people to r…

Yeah I think if we are looking at it through that lens, the problem is in the term _intelligence_ in itself. Psychology and biology could not even pinpoint what exactly makes for _intelligence_. There isn't really a precise definition yet so it's just natural that definitions tend to shift.

I don't think we even need to go into tech and AI for an example. The intelligence or lack thereof of pets surprise us. Sometimes a cat is surprisingly smart when it is able to open a door to get food it wasn't supposed to. But then same cat gets bamboozled by walls and simple optical illusions. We generally expect that if something/a human is smart enough to do the former, then it shouldn't be dumb enough to fall for the latter.

Coming back to AI, this dissonance is how AI-generated images are detected for example. If a human can render something so well, you wouldn't expect them to make small but nonetheless elementary line art mistakes.

Post reply on HN