661–670 of 680 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Messi would only play well in Barcelona. Lecunn can produce high quality research anywhere. It's not a great comparison.
It's a great comparison, and we are on the same page. Zuck wants both great products and research. Lecunn is great at producing high quality research. So, Lecunn isn't quite a good fit at Facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what's the end result? All one can see is just bigger representation of those who confidently subscribe to false information and become arrogant when their validity is questioned, as the LLM writing style has convinced them it's some sort of authority. Even people on this website are so misinformed to believe that ChatGPT has developed its own reasoning, despite it being at the core an advanced learning algorithm…
This seems a bit self-contradictory: you say LLMs mislead people and can't reason, then fault them for being good at helping people solve puzzles or win trivia games. You can't have it both ways.
Why would you postulate these two to be mutually exclusive?
> then fault them for being good at helping people solve puzzles or win trivia games
They only help them in the same sense that a calculator would 'help' win at a hypothetical mental math competition, that is the gist; robbing people of the creative and mentally stimulating processes that make the game(s) fun. But I've come to realize this is an unpopular opinion on this website where being fiercely competitive is the only remarkable personality trait, so I guess yeah it may be useful for this particular population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But LLMs still can't reason... in a reasonable sense. No matter how you look at it, it is still a statistical model that guesses next word, it doesn't think/reason per se.
It is insane to think this in 2025 unless you define "reasoning" as "the thing I can do that LLMs cannot"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ridiculous. Theranos was a literal crime scene. Its products didn't work at all, and physically couldn't work due to the nature of blood itself. Magic Leap was an honest if overhyped effort that didn't achieve product-market fit. Meanwhile, products from OpenAI and Anthropic have both done useful work for me this week.
Magic Leap sits closer to Theranos in my view but agree otherwise
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I think LeCun is underestimating the impact that LLM's and Diffusion models are going to have, even considering the huge impact they're already having. That's no problem as I'm sure whatever LeCun is working on is going to be amazing as well, but an enterprise like Facebook can't have their top researcher work on risky things when there's surefire paths to success still available.
> I think LeCun is underestimating the impact that LLM's and Diffusion models No, I think hes suggesting that "world models" are more impactful. The issue for him inside meta is that there is already a research group looking at that, and are wildly more successful (in terms of getting research to product) and way fucking cheaper to run than FAIR. Also LeCun is stuck weirdly in product land, rather than research (RL-R…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can anyone explain to me the non-$$ logic for one working towards AGI, aside from misanthropy? The only other thing I can imagine is not very charitable: intellectual greed. It can't just be that, can it? I genuinely don't understand. I would love to be educated.
I'm a true believer in AGI being able to become a force for immense good if deployed carefully by responsible parties. Currently one of the key issues with a lot of fields is that they operate as independent / largely isolated silos. If you could build a true AGI capable of achieving top-level mastery across multiple disciplines it would likely be able to integrate all that knowledge and make a lot of significant dis…
I always figured that we will begin to see signs of AGI when a quant firm starts making really outsized returns.
"Hey AGI, how do we avoid being exposed as having implemented AGI?" - Now there is the next trillion dollar and very boring question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who’s gonna pay for that inference? It’s going to take money, what if your AGI has some tax policy ideas that are different from the inference owners? Why would they let that AGI out into the wild? Let’s say you create AGI. How long will it take for society to recover? How long will it take for people of a certain tax ideology to finally say oh OK, UBI maybe? The last part is my main question. How long do you think i…
>sama gets a lot of shit, but I have to admit at least he used to work on the UBI problem, orb and all. The Orb was never ever ever meant to ever fix anything about UBI or even help it happen. It was always about creating a hyped enough cryptocoin he could use as an ATM to fund himself and other things. That's what all these assholes got into crypto for, like, demonstrably. It was always about taking investment from…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who’s gonna pay for that inference? It’s going to take money, what if your AGI has some tax policy ideas that are different from the inference owners? Why would they let that AGI out into the wild? Let’s say you create AGI. How long will it take for society to recover? How long will it take for people of a certain tax ideology to finally say oh OK, UBI maybe? The last part is my main question. How long do you think i…
If you are genuine in your questions, I will give them a shot. AGI applied to the inputs (or supply chain) of what is needed for inference (power, DC space, chips, network equipment, etc) will dramatically reduced costs of inference. Most of the costs of stuff today are driven by the scarcity of "smart people's time". The raw resources of material needed are dirt cheap (cheaper than water). Transforming raw resources…
> This is a lovely idea, it truly is. However, if you don't somehow bootstrap AGI, won't "the money" just use (hijack) it to make more money, in the normal dark ways?
> I always figured that we will begin to see signs of AGI when a quant firm starts making really outsized returns.
> "Hey AGI, how do we avoid being exposed as having implemented AGI?" - Now there is the next trillion dollar and very boring question.
In this seemingly undeniable environment, what will be the timescale for our civilization to recover with the media and inference owners having full control of "AGI" - until the benefits finally trickle down to general humanity? 1 year, 10 years, 5 generations, possibly never? Assuming you accept my priors, what is that timescale in your view?