←back to thread

385 points vessenes | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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
inimino ◴[] No.43367126[source]
I have a paper coming up that I modestly hope will clarify some of this.

The short answer should be that it's obvious LLM training and inference are both ridiculously inefficient and biologically implausible, and therefore there has to be some big optimization wins still on the table.

replies(5): >>43367169 #>>43367233 #>>43367463 #>>43367776 #>>43367860 #
jedberg ◴[] No.43367169[source]
> and biologically implausible

I really like this approach. Showing that we must be doing it wrong because our brains are more efficient and we aren't doing it like our brains.

Is this a common thing in ML papers or something you came up with?

replies(3): >>43367186 #>>43367478 #>>43368146 #
esafak ◴[] No.43367186[source]
Evolution does not need to converge on the optimum solution.

Have you heard of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-inspired_computing ?

replies(2): >>43367202 #>>43367214 #
1. jedberg ◴[] No.43367202[source]
It does not, you're right. But it's an interesting way to approach the problem never the less. And given that we definitely aren't as efficient as a human brain right now, it makes sense to look at the brain for inspiration.