Thread

1. stratos123 · 1791107241 · focus · HN ↗

   LeCun also said back in 2022 that "if you train a machine, as powerful as it could be, your 'GPT-5000', on text", it will never be able to learn basic common-sense physics like that objects placed on tables will move along with them.

   1. mdp2021 · 1791117069 · focus · HN ↗

      > never be able to learn basic common-sense physics

      And has it at this stage, within in-depth take of said "learning", foundationally?

      I have not been able to properly check the studies for a long time now, but I remain unaware of achieved solutions on the problem of reliably referencing a world model out of a language model - that "counting the 'r's in 'raspberry'" be not guessing, not memory, but actually counting.

      1. Version467 · 1791121712 · focus · HN ↗

         LeCun's argument wasn't about the definition of learning though. He stated that they would never get these common sense things correct because they weren't sufficiently part of the training data. A statement that we can hopefully all agree has been thoroughly refuted.

         1. cztomsik · 1791149877 · focus · HN ↗

            nothing indicated otherwise at the time. IMO he just underestimated RL-scaling. chinese models improved a lot too, they are not parrots anymore, there's some real intelligence, at 27B params.

            consider me optimist now, but just few months ago, even frontier models were dumb, doing stupid mistakes all the time, all of them were so dumb I'd never expect anything to change in just few months.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.