Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

Yann LeCun argues that large language models (LLMs) cannot reach human-level or superintelligence just by scaling. He says the current LLM paradigm is hitting its limits. Many researchers are now exploring “agentic systems,” but building them on top of LLMs alone is flawed. LLMs can't plan actions well because... show more

Wes Roth

35,912 subscribers

71,824 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Образование Наука и технологии

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Yann LeCun says basing agentic systems on the current LLM paradigm is a recipe for disaster Intelligent behavior requires a world model to predict the consequences of actions, which LLMs do not have "the basic architecture is not there"

Yann LeCun says basing agentic systems on the current LLM paradigm is a recipe for disaster Intelligent behavior requires a world model to predict the consequences of actions, which LLMs do not have "the basic architecture is not there"

Haider.

61,211 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

“LLMs are intrinsically unsafe.” Yann LeCun argues that models that can’t predict the consequences of their actions can’t be made reliable.

“LLMs are intrinsically unsafe.” Yann LeCun argues that models that can’t predict the consequences of their actions can’t be made reliable.

Jacob Effron

42,383 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Yann LeCun says you cannot build a reliable agentic system without a world model LLMs don't have world models. They can't predict the consequences of their actions before taking them "they just act, and whatever happens next is someone else's problem" Without that, it's not intelligence

Yann LeCun says you cannot build a reliable agentic system without a world model LLMs don't have world models. They can't predict the consequences of their actions before taking them "they just act, and whatever happens next is someone else's problem" Without that, it's not intelligence

Haider.

331,601 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Yann LeCun says LLMs are not a bubble in value or investment; they will power many useful apps and justify big infra The bubble is believing LLMs alone will reach human-level intelligence Progress needs breakthroughs, not just more data/compute "we're missing something big"

Yann LeCun says LLMs are not a bubble in value or investment; they will power many useful apps and justify big infra The bubble is believing LLMs alone will reach human-level intelligence Progress needs breakthroughs, not just more data/compute "we're missing something big"

Haider.

321,516 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Yann LeCun says we're fooled by LLMs because they manipulate language well, and we associate that with intelligence But language fluency doesn't mean underlying intelligence Every generation since the 1950s claimed its technique was the ticket to human-level AI All were wrong. "this generation with LLMs is also wrong"

Yann LeCun says we're fooled by LLMs because they manipulate language well, and we associate that with intelligence But language fluency doesn't mean underlying intelligence Every generation since the 1950s claimed its technique was the ticket to human-level AI All were wrong. "this generation with LLMs is also wrong"

Haider.

625,549 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

“An AI that can act before it understands is not reliable infrastructure.” Yann LeCun, Meta’s Chief AI Scientist and one of the fathers of modern deep learning, says current LLMs are intrinsically unsafe. Not because they are evil, but because they hallucinate, lack common sense, and cannot reliably predict the consequences of agentic actions.

“An AI that can act before it understands is not reliable infrastructure.” Yann LeCun, Meta’s Chief AI Scientist and one of the fathers of modern deep learning, says current LLMs are intrinsically unsafe. Not because they are evil, but because they hallucinate, lack common sense, and cannot reliably predict the consequences of agentic actions.

Jon Hernandez

10,481 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Yann LeCun says LLMs are intrinsically unsafe because they cannot be made fully reliable They can still hallucinate or take agentic actions without predicting the consequences properly "coding works because you can verify the output, but real-world tasks are harder to verify"

Yann LeCun says LLMs are intrinsically unsafe because they cannot be made fully reliable They can still hallucinate or take agentic actions without predicting the consequences properly "coding works because you can verify the output, but real-world tasks are harder to verify"

Haider.

33,310 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

"we will not get to human-level AI by just scaling up LLMs... it's not going to happen" Meta AI chief scientist, Yann LeCun: scaling up LLMs alone will not lead to human-level AI ...what we’ll have instead are systems with huge memory and retrieval abilities, but still not able to invent solutions to new problems

"we will not get to human-level AI by just scaling up LLMs... it's not going to happen" Meta AI chief scientist, Yann LeCun: scaling up LLMs alone will not lead to human-level AI ...what we’ll have instead are systems with huge memory and retrieval abilities, but still not able to invent solutions to new problems

Haider.

123,655 просмотров • 1 год назад

📁 Yann LeCun says that scaling models will not get us to human intelligence. He explains that the industry remains obsessed with making LLMs bigger, but that this path is fundamentally broken. It does not matter how many parameters we add or how many clusters we build, because the models only imitate language patterns. Human intelligence does not emerge from size, it emerges from understanding the world.

📁 Yann LeCun says that scaling models will not get us to human intelligence. He explains that the industry remains obsessed with making LLMs bigger, but that this path is fundamentally broken. It does not matter how many parameters we add or how many clusters we build, because the models only imitate language patterns. Human intelligence does not emerge from size, it emerges from understanding the world.

Jon Hernandez

156,594 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Yann LeCun says the real world is far more complex than the world of language LLMs can accumulate knowledge, but they fail with high-dimensional, continuous, noisy sensory data "the next revolution is physical AI" Systems that can truly plan, reason, and understand the physical environment

Yann LeCun says the real world is far more complex than the world of language LLMs can accumulate knowledge, but they fail with high-dimensional, continuous, noisy sensory data "the next revolution is physical AI" Systems that can truly plan, reason, and understand the physical environment

Haider.

66,616 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Computer scientist Judea Pearl: There are mathematical limits to LLMs that cannot be crossed by scaling alone LLMs don't discover world models from raw data; they merely summarize the interpretations humans have already written down "this path is not the way to get AGI"

Computer scientist Judea Pearl: There are mathematical limits to LLMs that cannot be crossed by scaling alone LLMs don't discover world models from raw data; they merely summarize the interpretations humans have already written down "this path is not the way to get AGI"

Haider.

622,755 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

4. AGI timeline is 2027-2034 Yann LeCun's exact words: "3-5 years to get world models working. Then scaling until human-level AI... within a decade or so." But it won't come from scaling LLMs.

4. AGI timeline is 2027-2034 Yann LeCun's exact words: "3-5 years to get world models working. Then scaling until human-level AI... within a decade or so." But it won't come from scaling LLMs.

Karl Mehta

96,079 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Yann LeCun says language isn’t intelligence. Predicting text doesn’t mean understanding reality. The real world is messy, physical, and causal and today’s LLMs barely touch that. The next leap is Physical AI: world models, cause and effect, real planning. Do you think LLMs can evolve into this, or do we need a completely new architecture?

Yann LeCun says language isn’t intelligence. Predicting text doesn’t mean understanding reality. The real world is messy, physical, and causal and today’s LLMs barely touch that. The next leap is Physical AI: world models, cause and effect, real planning. Do you think LLMs can evolve into this, or do we need a completely new architecture?

VraserX e/acc

76,154 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

AMI Labs founder Yann LeCun on why LLMs are fooling us the same way AI has for decades: He argues that every generation of AI scientists has made the same mistake: confusing task performance with real intelligence. LeCun's core challenge to the current hype: "We're fooled into thinking those machines are intelligent because they can manipulate language. And we're used to the fact that people who can manipulate language very well are implicitly smart." He's clear that LLMs are useful, but being a useful tool and being intelligent are two very different things. The real insight is the historical pattern he's lived through. Since the 1950s, wave after wave of AI researchers have claimed their breakthrough was the path to human-level intelligence. Marvin Minsky. Herbert Simon. Frank Rosenblatt — who invented the perceptron, the first learning machine, in the 1950s — all predicted machines as smart as humans within a decade. "They were all wrong." LeCun has personally witnessed three of these cycles of hype and disappointment. And his verdict on the current one is blunt: "This generation with LLMs is also wrong. It's just another example of being fooled." The pattern: A new technique emerges → machines get good at specific tasks → we assume general intelligence The question worth asking: are we impressed by these tools because they're intelligent, or because they sound like they are?

AMI Labs founder Yann LeCun on why LLMs are fooling us the same way AI has for decades: He argues that every generation of AI scientists has made the same mistake: confusing task performance with real intelligence. LeCun's core challenge to the current hype: "We're fooled into thinking those machines are intelligent because they can manipulate language. And we're used to the fact that people who can manipulate language very well are implicitly smart." He's clear that LLMs are useful, but being a useful tool and being intelligent are two very different things. The real insight is the historical pattern he's lived through. Since the 1950s, wave after wave of AI researchers have claimed their breakthrough was the path to human-level intelligence. Marvin Minsky. Herbert Simon. Frank Rosenblatt — who invented the perceptron, the first learning machine, in the 1950s — all predicted machines as smart as humans within a decade. "They were all wrong." LeCun has personally witnessed three of these cycles of hype and disappointment. And his verdict on the current one is blunt: "This generation with LLMs is also wrong. It's just another example of being fooled." The pattern: A new technique emerges → machines get good at specific tasks → we assume general intelligence The question worth asking: are we impressed by these tools because they're intelligent, or because they sound like they are?

Big Brain AI

126,482 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

The CEO of Google DeepMind just went on record saying he disagrees with one of the most respected AI researchers in the world. Demis Hassabis, the man behind AlphaFold, AlphaGo, and Google's entire AI operation publicly pushed back against Yann LeCun's claim that large language models are a dead end for artificial intelligence. LeCun, who left Meta earlier this year to start his own AI lab, has been saying for years that LLMs cannot reason, cannot plan, and will never get us to human-level intelligence. Hassabis disagrees, and he said so directly. His position is that scaling laws are still working, foundation models are still getting more capable, and whatever AGI ends up looking like, LLMs will be a central part of it, not something that gets replaced. He does say there is roughly a 50/50 chance that one or two additional breakthroughs will be needed beyond scaling alone, things like better memory, long-term planning, and world models. But the core disagreement with LeCun is clear, Hassabis believes the current architecture is sound and the current path leads somewhere real. Two Nobel-recognized researchers, two founding figures of modern AI, now publicly on opposite sides of the most important technical question in the industry.

The CEO of Google DeepMind just went on record saying he disagrees with one of the most respected AI researchers in the world. Demis Hassabis, the man behind AlphaFold, AlphaGo, and Google's entire AI operation publicly pushed back against Yann LeCun's claim that large language models are a dead end for artificial intelligence. LeCun, who left Meta earlier this year to start his own AI lab, has been saying for years that LLMs cannot reason, cannot plan, and will never get us to human-level intelligence. Hassabis disagrees, and he said so directly. His position is that scaling laws are still working, foundation models are still getting more capable, and whatever AGI ends up looking like, LLMs will be a central part of it, not something that gets replaced. He does say there is roughly a 50/50 chance that one or two additional breakthroughs will be needed beyond scaling alone, things like better memory, long-term planning, and world models. But the core disagreement with LeCun is clear, Hassabis believes the current architecture is sound and the current path leads somewhere real. Two Nobel-recognized researchers, two founding figures of modern AI, now publicly on opposite sides of the most important technical question in the industry.

Milk Road AI

130,649 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Understanding LLMs by Building One 👉 We use large language models every day, but what actually happens inside them?

Understanding LLMs by Building One 👉 We use large language models every day, but what actually happens inside them?

Danilo Poccia

14,181 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Yann LeCun (AMI Labs Founder): "The AI industry is completely LLM-pilled. Everybody is working on the same thing. They're all digging the same trench." LeCun explains why no lab dares break from the pack: "They are stealing each other's engineers. So they can't afford to do something different because if they start going on a tangent, they're going to fall behind the other guys. And so they're all doing the same thing." This groupthink is exactly what drove him out of Meta. "Meta also became LLM-pilled with sort of recent reshuffling. And it's fine, a strategic decision that maybe makes sense for them. It's just not what I'm interested in." For Yann LeCun, the problem runs deeper than strategy. LLMs are missing something essential about how intelligence actually works: "I cannot imagine that we can build agentic systems without those systems having an ability to predict in advance what the consequences of their actions are going to be. The way we act in the world is that we can predict the consequences of our actions and that's what allows us to plan." His broader critique is that the industry has mistaken fluency for intelligence. Language turned out to be the easy part. The hard part is the physical world. It's why we still don't have domestic robots or level-five self-driving cars, even though today's systems can pass the bar exam and write code.

Yann LeCun (AMI Labs Founder): "The AI industry is completely LLM-pilled. Everybody is working on the same thing. They're all digging the same trench." LeCun explains why no lab dares break from the pack: "They are stealing each other's engineers. So they can't afford to do something different because if they start going on a tangent, they're going to fall behind the other guys. And so they're all doing the same thing." This groupthink is exactly what drove him out of Meta. "Meta also became LLM-pilled with sort of recent reshuffling. And it's fine, a strategic decision that maybe makes sense for them. It's just not what I'm interested in." For Yann LeCun, the problem runs deeper than strategy. LLMs are missing something essential about how intelligence actually works: "I cannot imagine that we can build agentic systems without those systems having an ability to predict in advance what the consequences of their actions are going to be. The way we act in the world is that we can predict the consequences of our actions and that's what allows us to plan." His broader critique is that the industry has mistaken fluency for intelligence. Language turned out to be the easy part. The hard part is the physical world. It's why we still don't have domestic robots or level-five self-driving cars, even though today's systems can pass the bar exam and write code.

Big Brain AI

288,411 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Demis Hassabis says large language models (LLMs) can search and plan but they forget everything once the session ends. This is because today’s models don’t truly “learn” after deployment. He sees continual learning and better memory as key missing ingredients for AGI. Efficient memory, like the brain’s ability to store only what matters, will be crucial. LLMs are powerful, but without memory, they have a "goldfish brain."

Demis Hassabis says large language models (LLMs) can search and plan but they forget everything once the session ends. This is because today’s models don’t truly “learn” after deployment. He sees continual learning and better memory as key missing ingredients for AGI. Efficient memory, like the brain’s ability to store only what matters, will be crucial. LLMs are powerful, but without memory, they have a "goldfish brain."

Wes Roth

38,833 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад