←back to thread

385 points vessenes | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.203s | source

So, Lecun has been quite public saying that he believes LLMs will never fix hallucinations because, essentially, the token choice method at each step leads to runaway errors -- these can't be damped mathematically.

In exchange, he offers the idea that we should have something that is an 'energy minimization' architecture; as I understand it, this would have a concept of the 'energy' of an entire response, and training would try and minimize that.

Which is to say, I don't fully understand this. That said, I'm curious to hear what ML researchers think about Lecun's take, and if there's any engineering done around it. I can't find much after the release of ijepa from his group.

Show context
killthebuddha ◴[] No.43365456[source]
I've always felt like the argument is super flimsy because "of course we can _in theory_ do error correction". I've never seen even a semi-rigorous argument that error correction is _theoretically_ impossible. Do you have a link to somewhere where such an argument is made?
replies(3): >>43366044 #>>43367051 #>>43370111 #
1. vhantz ◴[] No.43367051[source]
> of course we can _in theory_ do error correction

Oh yeah? This is begging the question.