It's just he's qualified himself as an unreliable witness. This is not someone who deeply understands and thinks about what he does or what he advises.
The things that I know about, that he writes about, where I know he's got it a bit wrong.... I find myself questioning if he's right or not. Because he's a persuasive writer. But winning arguments doesn't make you right. This isn't a supported, balanced discussion it's a self aggrandising mismash of commonplace ideas and issues.
He's learned how to grab the mic, he believes he has the right to the mic, people are listening to him.. all three of these are wrong and until we call this out and put a stop to people like this shooting their mouths off damage is going to carry on being done.
This is interesting and all, but why should we believe any of it?
1) This guy has a track record (confessed) of making shit up, yapping on about it, and pushing it on the innocent. He's done a bunch of damage with his bullshit and now wants us to pay attention again. I mean - something something off fella.
2) There is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that his ideas are good. He's just making stuff up.
Give me a reason. Also shouldn't he be ostracised and stripped of his wealth for his previous rubbish?
I think that LeCunns belief was/is that LLM's have limited value and are a dead end, so what they wanted to do was kill any competitor while evolving tech that was/is a winner.
Well, he lost his job on that bet... and yet... I do not think that the verdict of history is quite in.
I don't get this - I can do LORA on my mac... ok I can't do LORA on a 1tn param model, but if I was in the tn parameter model game I would get some kit that I could use to do that...
Of course, if our universe is undecidable it must be the case that computable processes can be executed within it, and it might be the case that all of the processes that are ever executed within it are computable... but it might be that some of the processes that are executed are not computable... because the machine may.. or may not?
Computation has turned out to be a far more general concept than I think was imagined, up to the point that many computer scientists now seem to equate computation with the functioning of the universe. Recently it's been shown that there are real, physical processes which are undecidable (we cannot know if a latice of atoms has a spectral gap or not, we cannot determine if a specific particle in a fluid flow will reach a specific place or not, we cannot determine if a ray of light will reach a specific target in certain configurations of reflection).
Our world appeared computable, but it isn't, even if P=NP.
>>Relying on such LLMs without understanding their internal logic creates a significant reliability risk. To build tools that work consistently, developers must understand the core principles that govern how the models process information and generate results. By mastering how a model processes information and how its internal settings influence the result, developers can move away from a trial-and-error approach toward a more precise one to ensure the AI tool handles complex data reliably.
This is staggering bullshitp. In what way does understanding a transformer allow you to solve the core problem of LLM's that no frontier lab has managed to resolve?
>>To fix the problem, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) forces AI to look up information in a trusted source such as a company’s database.
This also is bullshit. Yes, RAG helps and reduces errors, but NOOOO! it does not fix hallucinations...
>>Prioritizing data security. When using AI with proprietary code, security is a major concern. Engineers must learn how to set up “private” instances of the models to ensure that sensitive company data stays within a secure cloud environment and is not used to train public versions.
This is somewhat true, but really the motive is providing a soverign instance that cannot be withdrawn for arbitary reasons. Fundamentally the big providers are not going to steal your data, they may change the license to allow them to use it in the future, but then all their big customers will leave. So, they won't be able to, probably. What might well happen (and has happened) is that the USA might withdraw access with no notice leaving you high and dry.
I want to learn to build a real LLM so I looked at https://allenai.org/olmo where there are instructions and ingredients. But, unfortunately I can't afford the required compute resource so I will have to wait for a bit I guess.
I know many will draw a line between Hubris and Nemesis here, but I feel really sorry for this guy and just wish some good health for him. I personally find the whole long life influncing and health hacking movement annoying, but I recognise that many, if not most, of the folks involved are acting in good faith and just trying to feel better themselves or help others feel better.
He probably can't any more (I have no idea what the implications of his stomach disorder are, but I don't imagine great). But if he can I hope he has a beer and just relaxes and gets some happy vibes for a time.
>>Well, Viking carried an experiment that tried to detect life. Now, the consensus is that it failed, and that the experiment was incapable of creating a useful result given the chemistry of the soil. Some people argue about that, but I am in no way qualified to take part in the debate, so I would back the consensus here.
>>What is odd is that there hasn't been a single other mission that's carried any experiment that has the objective of creating that result.
>>If the objective is to find life, why isn't anyone actually looking?
>>Tell me if what I've said above is in any way factually incorrect.
So... you tell me. Why no experiment? Not one in 50 years?
In the meantime we've learned a lot about the Martian atmosphere, it's climate, it's history, it's geology, the evolution of it's surface. I would argue that if a Viking 3 had flown with a revised kit that produced a definitive signal we wouldn't have got any of that.
Well, Viking carried an experiment that tried to detect life. Now, the consensus is that it failed, and that the experiment was incapable of creating a useful result given the chemistry of the soil. Some people argue about that, but I am in no way qualified to take part in the debate, so I would back the consensus here.
What is odd is that there hasn't been a single other mission that's carried any experiment that has the objective of creating that result.
If the objective is to find life, why isn't anyone actually looking?
Tell me if what I've said above is in any way factually incorrect.
I think that median household disposable income is a much better way of looking at this than GDP.
2014 is the turn. The US gained shale, isolationism is possible, Trump 2 is created by the general (true) perception that things were good under Trump 1. The European war starts and China is left to dominate Asia.