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

Yann LeCun, Pioneer of AI, Thinks Today's LLM's Are Nearly Obsolete

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 147 posts

Re: Yann LeCun, Pioneer of AI, Thinks Today's LLM's Are Nearly Obsolete

#121

Post by jaggederest »

darkwater wrote: post #43
jaggederest wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a fun example of that kind of "I've updated my statements but not assessed any of my underlying lack of understanding" - it's a bad look on any kind of scientist. https://x.com/AukeHoekstra/status/1507047932226375688

Who are you referring to?

Yann LeCun. I think this post is a more elegant summary of what I'm trying to illustrate with this kind of thing:

> he has admitted to individual mistakes, but not to the systemic issues which produced them, which makes for a safe bet that there will be more mistakes in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43594771

Re: Yann LeCun, Pioneer of AI, Thinks Today's LLM's Are Nearly Obsolete

#122

Post by bitethecutebait »

DrBenCarson wrote: post #49
sorcerer-mar wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is no probabilistic link between the words of a text and the gist of the content How could that possibly be true? There’s obviously a link between “[original content] is summarized as [summarized”content]

It’s not true The idea that meaning is not impacted by language yet is somehow exclusively captured by language is just absolutely absurd Like saying X+Y=Z but changing X or Y won’t affect Z

... meaning is not always impacted by the specificity or sensitivity of language while sometimes indeed exclusively captured by it, although the exclusivity is more of a time-dependent thing as one could imagine a silent, theatrical piece that captures the very same meaning but the 'phantasiac' is probably constructing the scene(s) out of words ... but then again ... there either was, is or will be at least one Savant to whom this does not apply ... and maybe 'some' deaf and blind person, too ...

Re: Yann LeCun, Pioneer of AI, Thinks Today's LLM's Are Nearly Obsolete

#124

Post by gibsonf1 »

airstrike wrote: post #113
csdvrx wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My point is no type of math will work to model reason Then I disagree with you.

I'm ignorantly curious of what type of math will work in your view. Genuine question, I just want to be educated.

There is no type of math that can model conceptual reasoning. You can use conceptual reasoning, however, to do math.

Re: Yann LeCun, Pioneer of AI, Thinks Today's LLM's Are Nearly Obsolete

#125

Post by balamatom »

jxjnskkzxxhx wrote: post #118
balamatom wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't find anything surprising about that. What humans generally see of each other is little more than outer shells that are made out of sequenced linguistic patterns. They generally find that completely sufficient. (All things considered, you may be right to be suspicious of me.)

Nah, to me you're just an average person on the internet. If the recent developments don't surprise you, I just chalk it up to lack of curiosity. I'm well aware that people like you exist, most people are like that in fact. My comment was referring to experts specifically.

>how well an idea as simple as "find patterns in sequences" actually works for the purpose of sounding human

What surprises me is the assumption that there's more than "find patterns in sequences" to "sounding human" i.e. to emitting human-like communication patterns. What else could there be to it? It's a tautology.

>If the recent developments don't surprise you, I just chalk it up to lack of curiosity.

Recent developments don't surprise me in the least. I am, however, curious enough to be absolutely terrified by them. For one, behind the human-shaped communication sequences there could previously be assumed to be an actual human.

Re: Yann LeCun, Pioneer of AI, Thinks Today's LLM's Are Nearly Obsolete

#126

Post by daveguy »

antirez wrote: post #23

As LLMs do things thought to be impossible before, LeCun adjusts his statements about LLMs, but at the same time his credibility goes lower and lower. He started saying that LLMs were just predicting words using a probabilistic model, like a better Markov Chain, basically. It was already pretty clear that this was not the case as even GPT3 could do summarization well enough, and there is no probabilistic link between…

o3 progress on ARC was not a zero shot. It was based on fine tuning to the particular data set. A major point of ARC is that humans do not need fine tuning more than being explained what the problem is. And a few humans working on it together after minimal explanation can achieve 100%.

o3 doing well on ARC after domain training is not a great argument. There is something significant missing from LLMs being intelligent.

I'm not sure if you watched the entire video, but there were insightful observations. I don't think anyone believes LLMs aren't a significant breakthrough in HCI and language modelling. But it is many layers with many winters away from AGI.

Re: Yann LeCun, Pioneer of AI, Thinks Today's LLM's Are Nearly Obsolete

#127

Post by daveguy »

antirez wrote: post #23

As LLMs do things thought to be impossible before, LeCun adjusts his statements about LLMs, but at the same time his credibility goes lower and lower. He started saying that LLMs were just predicting words using a probabilistic model, like a better Markov Chain, basically. It was already pretty clear that this was not the case as even GPT3 could do summarization well enough, and there is no probabilistic link between…

o3 progress on ARC was not a zero shot. It was based on fine tuning to the particular data set. A major point of ARC is that humans do not need fine tuning more than being explained what the problem is. And a few humans working on it together after minimal explanation can achieve 100%.

o3 doing well on ARC after domain training is not a great argument. There is something significant missing from LLMs being intelligent.

I'm not sure if you watched the entire video, but there were insightful observations. I don't think anyone believes LLMs aren't a significant breakthrough in HCI and language modelling. But it is many layers with many winters away from AGI.

Also, understanding human and machine intelligence isn't about sides. And CoT is not symbolic reasoning.

Re: Yann LeCun, Pioneer of AI, Thinks Today's LLM's Are Nearly Obsolete

#128

Post by aprilthird2021 »

marliechiller wrote: post #70
aprilthird2021 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact, pattern-matching is all there is: That's a bear, run away; I'm in a restaurant, I need to order; this is like a binary tree, I can solve it recursively. This is not correct. It does not explain creativity at all. It cannot solely be based on pattern matching. I'm not saying no AI is creative, but this logic does not explain creativity

Is creativity not just the application of a pattern in an adjacent space?

No, lol

Re: Yann LeCun, Pioneer of AI, Thinks Today's LLM's Are Nearly Obsolete

#130

Post by danielmarkbruce »

nurettin wrote: post #119
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you need basically rock solid evidence of X before you stop saying "this thing cannot do X", then you shouldn't be running a forward looking lab. There are only so many directions you can take, only so many resources at your disposal. Your intuition has to be really freakishly good to be running such a lab. He's done a lot of amazing work, but his stance on LLMs seems continuously off the mark.

I'm going to wear the tinfoil hat: a firm is able to produce a sought-after behavior a few months later and throws people off. Is it more likely that the firm (worth billions at this point) is engineering these solutions into the model, or is it because of emergent neural network architectural magic? I'm not saying that they are being bad actors, just saying this is more probable in my mind than an LLM breakthrough.

It depends what you mean by "engineering these solutions into the model". Using better data leads to better models given the same architecture and training. Nothing wrong with it, it's hard work, it might be with as specific goal in mind. LLM "breakthroughs" aren't really a thing at this point. It's just one little thing after another.
Post reply on HN