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

How New Are Yann LeCun's “New” Ideas?

garymarcus.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: How New Are Yann LeCun's “New” Ideas?

#81

Post by lostmsu »

mirker wrote: post #60
adamsmith143 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diminishing returns? Have you read the Gato, Palm, Stable Diffusion, etc. papers? Progress is racing ahead. Nothing is stalling... the only thing stopping progress from accelerating even faster is data.

Many of these scaling patterns are logarithmic with respect to data size. You can only double the dataset size so many times that it’s really not clear the scaling will continue.

Low data modes are also progressing quite fast. There is Dreamer and more recent papers based on RL in learned world models.

Re: How New Are Yann LeCun's “New” Ideas?

#82

Post by lostmsu »

bjourne wrote: post #71
paganel wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stable Diffusion was published like only a few months ago Honest question: what's "intelligence"-like about Stable Diffusion?

Because being able to draw "a painting of joe biden as king kong on top of a skyscraper in the style of monet" was something that until very recently were thought of as requiring intelligence. Of course, now it is not so impressive anymore because it is all mathematics and digital logic. But that is the problem with defining artificial intelligence. Any time a task is implemented on a computer you can point to that i…

Turing test.

Re: How New Are Yann LeCun's “New” Ideas?

#83

Post by bjourne »

lostmsu wrote: post #82
bjourne wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because being able to draw "a painting of joe biden as king kong on top of a skyscraper in the style of monet" was something that until very recently were thought of as requiring intelligence. Of course, now it is not so impressive anymore because it is all mathematics and digital logic. But that is the problem with defining artificial intelligence. Any time a task is implemented on a computer you can point to that i…

Turing test.

The Turing test in its original formulation has already been soundly defeated. People now hedge their bets and require that an AI must fool leading AI researchers to pass the test. But the original test supposed that the interrogator was "average" and fooling 99.99% of the world's population must be good enough. Either way, as LaMDA demonstrates, it is only a matter of time before even the strongest imaginable version of the Turing is also defeated.

Re: How New Are Yann LeCun's “New” Ideas?

#84

Post by ahazred8ta »

jackblemming wrote: post #11

None of Gary’s comments were original either. I don’t know what I’d call this, but I’ve seen similar behavior elsewhere. This weird “flag planting” behavior to try to get credit without doing any actual work, as well as disregarding all prior work. Normally the “predictions” are vague or could be applied to anything. It seems borderline like a mental illness of some sort, but I’m not a mental health professional.

Weighing in on Chomsky-related topics can be a minefield as well. (ref. drfun) https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZ2wMx2CYAAVhOu?format=jpg&name=...

Re: How New Are Yann LeCun's “New” Ideas?

#85

Post by wwilim »

lostmsu wrote: post #82
bjourne wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because being able to draw "a painting of joe biden as king kong on top of a skyscraper in the style of monet" was something that until very recently were thought of as requiring intelligence. Of course, now it is not so impressive anymore because it is all mathematics and digital logic. But that is the problem with defining artificial intelligence. Any time a task is implemented on a computer you can point to that i…

Turing test.

The bear in the movie Annihilation passed the Turing test, but it didn't seem to have much intelligence

Re: How New Are Yann LeCun's “New” Ideas?

#86

Post by mirekrusin »

zimpenfish wrote: post #46
mirekrusin wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ideas" here being few commonly used words put together barely forming a sentence, not some algorithm, research or deep paper. Ie. the whole "idea" being "hey, for gai we need something different than this gtp3" tweet, not "idea" as in "hey I invented this new thing I call LSTM, check it out [link to paper, results what not]".

> hey I invented this new thing I call LSTM Well, the LSTM fella does pop up later calling out Lecun for "rehashes but doesn't cite essential work of 1999-2015". Which I guess does mean people with real "ideas" are also fed up with him? "Deep learning pioneer Jürgen Schmidhuber, author of the commercially ubiquitous LSTM neural network, arguably has even more right to be pissed [...]"

They should make an ai to do auto-citation for them.

Re: How New Are Yann LeCun's “New” Ideas?

#87

Post by lostmsu »

bjourne wrote: post #83
lostmsu wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turing test.

The Turing test in its original formulation has already been soundly defeated. People now hedge their bets and require that an AI must fool leading AI researchers to pass the test. But the original test supposed that the interrogator was "average" and fooling 99.99% of the world's population must be good enough. Either way, as LaMDA demonstrates, it is only a matter of time before even the strongest imaginable versio…

Was a publicly run Turing test ever defeated? I could not find any record of such.

Re: How New Are Yann LeCun's “New” Ideas?

#88

Post by adamsmith143 »

oldgradstudent wrote: post #55
adamsmith143 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Marcus isn't a practitioner and never has been. He's a public intellectual from a different field acting like he's an AI expert. You would never listen to criticisms of a Physics theory from a Biologist and you shouldn't listen to criticisms of Neural Networks from a Psychologist. He's proven time and time again that he doesn't understand the methods at work and doesn't even seem interested in trying to do so…

> You would never listen to criticisms of a Physics theory from a Biologist and you shouldn't listen to criticisms of Neural Networks from a Psychologist. Why? If their arguments are sound, why shouldn't we listen to them? Where is this silly credentialism coming from?

It's not credentialism at all, I said nothing about having a PhD in Physics for example. These theories are highly technical and if you aren't actively engaged in reading/replicating the most important papers and even lack the technical training to do so how can you really make coherent criticisms of them? It really beggars belief that a Biologist with nothing more than basic stats training can make sense of or poke holes in String Theory or Quantum Chromodynamics for example. Hence we get Marcus' pseduointellectual mush that passes for valid criticism of DL in the media or among other non-experts.

>Why? If their arguments are sound, why shouldn't we listen to them?

Generally arguments from non-experts like this fall into the "not even wrong" category and don't merit much attention.

Re: How New Are Yann LeCun's “New” Ideas?

#89

Post by oldgradstudent »

adamsmith143 wrote: post #88
oldgradstudent wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You would never listen to criticisms of a Physics theory from a Biologist and you shouldn't listen to criticisms of Neural Networks from a Psychologist. Why? If their arguments are sound, why shouldn't we listen to them? Where is this silly credentialism coming from?

It's not credentialism at all, I said nothing about having a PhD in Physics for example. These theories are highly technical and if you aren't actively engaged in reading/replicating the most important papers and even lack the technical training to do so how can you really make coherent criticisms of them? It really beggars belief that a Biologist with nothing more than basic stats training can make sense of or poke…

Experts, always and everywhere, tend to massively exaggerate the scope of their expertise.

How exactly holding the SOTA record of any, or even all, machine learning task gives you any authority on true intelligence?

What gives LeCun any authority on true intelligence?

Even Lecun points out that his paper is not technical.

The only thing that matters is the of the argument.

Re: How New Are Yann LeCun's “New” Ideas?

#90

Post by bjourne »

lostmsu wrote: post #87
bjourne wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Turing test in its original formulation has already been soundly defeated. People now hedge their bets and require that an AI must fool leading AI researchers to pass the test. But the original test supposed that the interrogator was "average" and fooling 99.99% of the world's population must be good enough. Either way, as LaMDA demonstrates, it is only a matter of time before even the strongest imaginable versio…

Was a publicly run Turing test ever defeated? I could not find any record of such.

Yes, it was. Your weak google skills notwithstanding.
Post reply on HN