undefined

points

by onlyrealcuzzo1 days ago |

comments

by Tenoke1 days ago|

[-]

https://youtube.com/shorts/zQTt8TkcyfU?is=09r7XDqz2w6-Pygu

You probably wont like the edit but I dont have the timestamp of the original on hand, you can find it.

by onlyrealcuzzo1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

That does not at all look cherry picked or taken out of context...

LeCun's ideas cannot be reduced to a 6 second clip...

You're missing the forrest for the trees, taking a singular example of a problem and thinking that if an LLM can solve the singular example it completely disproves LeCun is comical...

by Tenoke23 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You can watch the whole Lex Friedman interview, it's on youtube. It's not out of context at all. He goes on about how LLMs will never be able to do things that they do trivially. And he has just doubled down for years.

Ive read and watched more of his interviews and lectures it seems, it feels like you just have a rosier idea of his views than the views he repeatedly presents.

by ashwon1321 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think you misunderstand what he thinks LLMs can and can't do. He says repeatedly that LLMs may be great for generating text and code, but that a fundamental model of artificial intelligence should be able to perceive and use information outside of text. Also, that a supervised learning approach is not exactly representative for how we learn. That it's a small piece but we largely learn with unsupervised learning. His main criticisms of LLMs are that they are supervised, probabilistic, and learn largely from text instead of observations. His claims about performance come downstream and I'd still argue that he's been (somewhat) right about those as well.

That LLMs don't have common sense and don't have good physical reasoning abilities; that you can't scale LLMs all the way to AGI; or that they can't predict the consequences of their actions which is the foundation of agentic behavior all seem like still (mostly) accurate predictions to me.

While LeCun has his share of problems, I think largely his criticisms on LLMs are more right than wrong. What remains to see is how good JEPA can be at filling in the gaps left behind from the brittleness of LLMS.

by Tenoke15 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

LLMs dont just use text for a while now. It's also not fully supervised for a while.

by vatsachak17 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

LLM pre-training is definitely unsupervised.

by ashwon135 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think he argues more that LLMs are a form of supervision because you need a whole batch of text about specifically what you want the LLM to learn for it to be useful at that one topic. That they predict on human supplied data instead of learning purely from existing in the world and from observations.

by zarzavat15 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Either way, there's something fundamentally inefficient about the whole business of training LLMs.

The human brain manages to self-organize with only a fraction of the information that LLMs get trained on. To train an LLM you need a lot of high-quality data.

There are two threads in history: firstly the compute thread leading to GPUs and AlexNet in 2012. Secondly the model architecture thread that started long before we had the compute and lead to transformers in 2017.

If the compute thread had been 30 years behind then we might be spending this century coming up with better architectures to make do with the more limited compute. However since the compute came first, we settled on the first thing that worked (transformers) and all effort went into polishing that.

There's something wrong with transformers though. No matter how many trillions of dollars get thrown at the problem, they still don't learn like humans do.

by Tenoke14 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

>The human brain manages to self-organize with only a fraction of the information that LLMs get trained on.

So? The question isnt can we get to ASI as efficiently as a brain, the question is can we get there, which we likely can. The inefficiencies can also be fixed after that.

>No matter how many trillions of dollars get thrown at the problem, they still don't learn like humans do.

Again, so? Humans are efficient but also bad at many things that transformers are already better at because of it. You are looking at the wrong thing if you think it needs to be like humans.

by vatsachak22 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

All of us were shocked with RL on LLMs.

To me LLMs have gotten better since 2024, but their fundamental flaws still seem there.

They hallucinate when it comes to really challenging tasks such as math proofs. They still do not reuse code well and will rewrite functions instead of perusing the standard library.

But this is good news. LLMs are awesome and they are only the first step towards AI being applied everywhere. They are a Model T

by irthomasthomas19 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It's like scaling a swiss cheese and the holes grow bigger with it. You can't get rid of the holes without making a different cheese.