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.
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.
For example, analog computers can differentiate near instantly by leveraging the nature of electromagnetism and you can do very basic analogs of complex equations by just connecting containers of water together in certain (very specific) configurations. Are we sure that these optimizations to get us to AGI are possible without abusing the physical nature of the world? This is without even touching the hot mess that is quantum mechanics and its role in chemistry which in turn affects biology. I wouldn't put it past evolution to have stumbled upon some quantum mechanic that allowed for the emergence of general intelligence.
I'm super interested in anything discussing this but have very limited exposure to the literature in this space.
Which we should expect, even from prior experience with any other AI breakthrough, where first we learn to do it and then we learn to do it efficiently.
E.g. Deep Blue in 1997 was IBM showing off a supercomputer, more than it was any kind of reasonably efficient algorithm, but those came over the next 20-30 years.