Making LeCun report to Wang was the most boneheaded move imaginable. But… I suppose Zuckerberg knows what he wants, which is AI slopware and not truly groundbreaking foundation models.
replies(20):
Corporate R&D teams are there to absorb risk, innovate, disrupt, create new fields, not for doing small incremental improvements. "If we know it works, it's not research." (Albert Einstein)
I also agree with LeCun that LLMs in their current form - are a dead end. Note that this does not mean that I think we have already exploited LLMs to the limit, we are still at the beginning. We also need to create an ecosystem in which they can operate well: for instance, to combine LLMs with Web agents better we need a scalable "C2B2C" (customer delegated to business to business) micropayment infrastructure, because as these systems have already begun talking to each other, in the longer run nobody would offer their APIs for free.
I work on spatial/geographic models, inter alia, which by coincident is one of the direction mentioned in the LeCun article. I do not know what his reasoning is, but mine was/is: LMs are language models, and should (only) be used as such. We need other models - in particular a knowledge model (KM/KB) to cleanly separate knowledge from text generation - it looks to me right now that only that will solve hallucination.
Everything from the sorites paradox to leaky abstractions; everything real defies precise definition when you look closely at it, and when you try to abstract over it, to chunk up, the details have an annoying way of making themselves visible again.
You can get purity in mathematical models, and in information systems, but those imperfectly model the world and continually need to be updated, refactored, and rewritten as they decay and diverge from reality.
These things are best used as tools by something similar to LLMs, models to be used, built and discarded as needed, but never a ground source of truth.
Cracking that is a huge step, pure multi-modal trained models will probably give us a hint, but I think we're some ways from seeing a pure multi-modal open model which can be pulled apart/modified. Even then they're still train and deploy not dynamically learning. I worry we're just going to see LSTM design bolted onto deep LLM because we don't know where else to go and it will be fragile and take eons to train.
And less said about the crap of "but inference is doing some kind of minimization within the context window" the better, it's vacuous and not where great minds should be looking for a step forwards.
Starting with the sophomoric questions of the optimist who mistakes the possible for the viable: how definite of a thing is "the world", how knowable is it, what is even knowledge... and then back through the more pragmatic: by whom is it knowable, to what degree, and by what means. The mystics: is "the world" the same thing as "the sum of information about the world"? The spooks: how does one study those fields of information which are already agentic and actively resist being studied by changing themselves, such as easily emerge anywhere more than n(D) people gather?
Plenty of food for thought from why ontologies are/aren't a thing. The classical example of how this plays out in the market being search engines winning over internet directories. But that's one turn of the wheel. Look at what search engines grew into quarter century later. What their outgrowths are doing to people's attitude towards knowledge. Different timescale, different picture.
Fundamentally, I don't think human language has sufficient resolution to model large spans of reality within the limited human attention span. The physical limits of human language as information processing device have been hit at some point in the XX century. Probably that 1970s divergence between productivity and wages.
So while LLMs are "computers speak language now" and it's amazing if sad that they cracked it by more data and not by more model, what's more amazing is how many people are continually ready to mistake language for thought. Are they all P-zombies or just obedience-conditioned into emulating ones?!?!?
Practically, what we lack is not the right architecture for "big knowing machine", but better tools for ad-hoc conceptual modeling of local situations. And, just like poetry that rhymes, this is exactly what nobody has a smidgen of interest to serve to consumers, thus someone will just build it in their basement in the hope of turning the tables on everyone. Probably with the help of LLMs as search engines and code generators. Yall better hurry. They're almost done.
I don't disagree that the world is full of fuzziness. But the problem I have with this portrayal is that formal models are often normative rather than analytical. They create reality rather than being an interpretation or abstraction of reality.
People may well have a fuzzy idea of how their credit card works, but how it really works is formally defined by financial institutions. And this is not just true for software products. It's also largely true for manufactured products. Our world is very much shaped by artifacts and man-made rules.
Our probabilistic, fuzzy concepts are often simply a misconception. That doesn't mean it's not important of course. It is important for an AI to understand how people talk about things even if their idea of how these things work is flawed.
And then there is the sort of semi-formal language used in legal or scientific contexts that often has to be translated into formal models before it can become effective. Law makers almost never write algorithms (when they do, they are often buggy). But tax authorities and accounting software vendors do have to formally model the language in the law and then potentially change those formal definitions after court decisions.
My point is that the way in which the modeled, formal world interacts with probabilistic, fuzzy language and human actions is complex. In my opinion we will always need both. AIs ultimately need to understand both and be able to combine them just like (competent) humans do. AI "tool use" is a stop-gap. It's not a sufficient level of understanding.
> Our probabilistic, fuzzy concepts are often simply a misconception.
How eg a credit card works today is defined by financial institutions. How it might work tomorrow is defined by politics, incentives, and human action. It's not clear how to model those with formal language.
I think most systems we interact with are fuzzy because they are in a continual state of change due to the aforementioned human society factors.
But ultimately I agree with you that this entire societal process is just categorically different. It's simply not a description or definition of something, and therefore the question of how formal it can be doesn't really make sense.
Formalisms are tools for a specific but limited purpose. I think we need those tools. Trying to replace them with something fuzzy makes no sense to me either.
> how many people are continually ready to mistake language for thought
This is a fundamental illusion - where, rote memory and names and words get mistaken for understanding. This was wonderfully illustrated here [1]. Few really grok what understanding actually is. This is an unfortunate by-product of our education system.
> Are they all P-zombies or just obedience-conditioned into emulating ones?!?!?
Brilliant way to state the fundamental human condition. ie, we are all zombies conditioned to imitate rather than understand. Social media amplifies the zombification, and now LLMs do that too.
> Starting with the sophomoric questions of the optimist who mistakes the possible for the viable
This is the fundamental tension between operationalized meaning and imagination. A grokking soul gathers mists from the cosmic chaos and creates meaning and operationalizes it for its own benefit and then continually adapts it.
> it's amazing if sad that they cracked it by more data and not by more model
I was speaking to experts in the sciences (chemistry). They were shocked that the underlying architecture is brute force. They expected a compact information-compressed theory which is able to model independent of data. The problem with brute-force approaches are that they dont scale, and dont capture the essences which are embodied in theories.
> The physical limits of human language as information processing device have been hit at some point in the XX century
2000 years back when humans realized that formalism was needed to operationalize meaning, and natural language was too vague to capture and communicate it. Because the world model that natural language captures encompasses "everything" whereas for making it "useful" requires to limit it via formalism.