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 explains that large language models are trained on about 30 trillion words, representing nearly all public internet text. He says it would take a human over 500,000 years to read that much. But a 4-year-old child sees just as much visual data in their first few years... show more

Wes Roth

35,833 subscribers

294,390 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Образование Здоровье и велнес 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, Chief AI Scientist at Meta, says you cannot understand the world by reading about it. All the text on the internet is around 30 trillion words, it would take a human half a million years to read it. A four year old absorbs more raw information just by looking at the world. Intelligence is not trained by text alone, it is shaped by experience.

📁 Yann LeCun, Chief AI Scientist at Meta, says you cannot understand the world by reading about it. All the text on the internet is around 30 trillion words, it would take a human half a million years to read it. A four year old absorbs more raw information just by looking at the world. Intelligence is not trained by text alone, it is shaped by experience.

Jon Hernandez

15,342 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Yann LeCun says all the public text on the internet equals about four years of what a child's eyes take in, and would take you 400,000 years to read: "When you take the totality of all the text available on the internet publicly, it's about 20 trillion words." "That's 30 trillion tokens. A token is two or three bytes. Let's say three. So that's 10 to the 14 bytes." "Of course, the big AI companies are also training with synthetic data and licensed non-public data, but it's not a lot actually compared to all the internet." "10 to the 14 bytes is just about the amount of bytes that gets to your visual cortex in the first four years of your life." "Whereas the text, the publicly available text on the internet would take any of us at least 400,000 years to read through, which is completely impractical obviously." - Yann LeCun (Yann LeCun), co-founder and executive chairman of AMI Labs, at the RAISE Summit (RAISE Summit).

Yann LeCun says all the public text on the internet equals about four years of what a child's eyes take in, and would take you 400,000 years to read: "When you take the totality of all the text available on the internet publicly, it's about 20 trillion words." "That's 30 trillion tokens. A token is two or three bytes. Let's say three. So that's 10 to the 14 bytes." "Of course, the big AI companies are also training with synthetic data and licensed non-public data, but it's not a lot actually compared to all the internet." "10 to the 14 bytes is just about the amount of bytes that gets to your visual cortex in the first four years of your life." "Whereas the text, the publicly available text on the internet would take any of us at least 400,000 years to read through, which is completely impractical obviously." - Yann LeCun (Yann LeCun), co-founder and executive chairman of AMI Labs, at the RAISE Summit (RAISE Summit).

Karl Mehta

23,868 просмотров • 11 дней назад

Yann LeCun just said something that every AI-in-healthcare researcher should sit with. He basically said: If language were enough to understand the world, you could learn medicine by reading books. But you can’t. You need residency. You need to see thousands of normal cases before you recognize the abnormal one. He also points out something wild — all the public text on the internet is on the order of 10¹⁴ bytes. A 4-year-old processes about that much through vision alone. The world is just… higher bandwidth than text. I think this shift — from language models to world models — is going to matter a lot in healthcare. 🫀

Yann LeCun just said something that every AI-in-healthcare researcher should sit with. He basically said: If language were enough to understand the world, you could learn medicine by reading books. But you can’t. You need residency. You need to see thousands of normal cases before you recognize the abnormal one. He also points out something wild — all the public text on the internet is on the order of 10¹⁴ bytes. A 4-year-old processes about that much through vision alone. The world is just… higher bandwidth than text. I think this shift — from language models to world models — is going to matter a lot in healthcare. 🫀

Bo Wang

418,789 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Yann LeCun (Yann LeCun ) explains why LLMs are so limited in terms of real-world intelligence. Says the biggest LLM is trained on about 30 trillion words, which is roughly 10 to the power 14 bytes of text. That sounds huge, but a 4 year old who has been awake about 16,000 hours has also taken in about 10 to the power 14 bytes through the eyes alone. So a small child has already seen as much raw data as the largest LLM has read. But the child’s data is visual, continuous, noisy, and tied to actions: gravity, objects falling, hands grabbing, people moving, cause and effect. From this, the child builds an internal “world model” and intuitive physics, and can learn new tasks like loading a dishwasher from a handful of demonstrations. LLMs only see disconnected text and are trained just to predict the next token. So they get very good at symbol patterns, exams, and code, but they lack grounded physical understanding, real common sense, and efficient learning from a few messy real-world experiences. --- From 'Pioneer Works' YT channel (link in comment)

Yann LeCun (Yann LeCun ) explains why LLMs are so limited in terms of real-world intelligence. Says the biggest LLM is trained on about 30 trillion words, which is roughly 10 to the power 14 bytes of text. That sounds huge, but a 4 year old who has been awake about 16,000 hours has also taken in about 10 to the power 14 bytes through the eyes alone. So a small child has already seen as much raw data as the largest LLM has read. But the child’s data is visual, continuous, noisy, and tied to actions: gravity, objects falling, hands grabbing, people moving, cause and effect. From this, the child builds an internal “world model” and intuitive physics, and can learn new tasks like loading a dishwasher from a handful of demonstrations. LLMs only see disconnected text and are trained just to predict the next token. So they get very good at symbol patterns, exams, and code, but they lack grounded physical understanding, real common sense, and efficient learning from a few messy real-world experiences. --- From 'Pioneer Works' YT channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

639,977 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

A 4-year-old child has seen 50x more information than the biggest LLMs. Yann LeCun is the Chief AI Scientist at Meta. He recently spoke on “The Expanding Universe of Generative Models” panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Yann highlighted the idea that a 4-year-old child is way smarter than current cutting-edge large language models (LLMs). “Think about what a child sees through vision. Put a number on how much information a 4-year-old child has seen during their life. It’s 20 Mbps going through the optical nerve for 16,000 wake hours in the first 4 years of life. 3,600 seconds per hour is 10^15 bytes. This is 50x more information than the biggest LLMs we have. A 4-year-old child is way smarter than these models having acquired an enormous amount of knowledge about how the world works.” The real constraint right now is the ability of LLMs to think. Today, LLMs are only capable of System 1 thinking. System 1 vs System 2 thinking was popularised in the book 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' by Daniel Kahneman. System 1 tasks involve quick, instinctive, automatic responses. LLMs struggle with discontinuous tasks that require a creative leap in progress as they imitate human responses. It's hard to go above human response accuracy if LLMs are only trained on humans. Models are building the track in front of them with each word being generated. What could it mean to give language models System 2 thinking? This remains a future development I'm excited about.

A 4-year-old child has seen 50x more information than the biggest LLMs. Yann LeCun is the Chief AI Scientist at Meta. He recently spoke on “The Expanding Universe of Generative Models” panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Yann highlighted the idea that a 4-year-old child is way smarter than current cutting-edge large language models (LLMs). “Think about what a child sees through vision. Put a number on how much information a 4-year-old child has seen during their life. It’s 20 Mbps going through the optical nerve for 16,000 wake hours in the first 4 years of life. 3,600 seconds per hour is 10^15 bytes. This is 50x more information than the biggest LLMs we have. A 4-year-old child is way smarter than these models having acquired an enormous amount of knowledge about how the world works.” The real constraint right now is the ability of LLMs to think. Today, LLMs are only capable of System 1 thinking. System 1 vs System 2 thinking was popularised in the book 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' by Daniel Kahneman. System 1 tasks involve quick, instinctive, automatic responses. LLMs struggle with discontinuous tasks that require a creative leap in progress as they imitate human responses. It's hard to go above human response accuracy if LLMs are only trained on humans. Models are building the track in front of them with each word being generated. What could it mean to give language models System 2 thinking? This remains a future development I'm excited about.

Alex Banks

22,985 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Does GPT understand the world? Here is what Ilya Sutskever, co-founder of OpenAI, says during a discussion with Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia: (1) When we train a large neural network to accurately predict the next word in lots of different texts from the internet, the AI is learning a world model. (2) On the surface, it may look like learning correlations in text, but it turns out that to 'just learn' statistical correlations in text, to compress information really well, what the neural network learns is some representation of the process that produced the text. (3) This text is a projection of the world...what the neural network is learning is aspects of the world, of people, of the human conditions, their hopes, dreams, motivations, their interactions...the situations we are in. The neural network learns a compressed, abstract, usable representation." Do you think learning representations = understanding? Are large language models simply stochastic parrots, or are they much more?

Does GPT understand the world? Here is what Ilya Sutskever, co-founder of OpenAI, says during a discussion with Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia: (1) When we train a large neural network to accurately predict the next word in lots of different texts from the internet, the AI is learning a world model. (2) On the surface, it may look like learning correlations in text, but it turns out that to 'just learn' statistical correlations in text, to compress information really well, what the neural network learns is some representation of the process that produced the text. (3) This text is a projection of the world...what the neural network is learning is aspects of the world, of people, of the human conditions, their hopes, dreams, motivations, their interactions...the situations we are in. The neural network learns a compressed, abstract, usable representation." Do you think learning representations = understanding? Are large language models simply stochastic parrots, or are they much more?

Alex Ker 🔭

1,367,097 просмотров • 2 лет назад

FRIEDBERG: VIDEO DATA WILL POWER THE NEXT GENERATION OF AI Friedberg broke down the scale shift coming to artificial intelligence, arguing that text based models like GPT are just the beginning, and that the real revolution will come from video-trained systems: “The internet and all these LLMs are language models trained on text from the internet, around 50 billion words total, maybe one to five terabytes of data in their training sets. But if you look at the video data out there, there are hundreds of billions of hours, much of it on YouTube. By some estimates, there’s a thousand exabytes of video data on the internet, about a billion times more than text data. I think we just saw that play out with the new video model that launched yesterday. Google has all this YouTube data, whether or not they’re using it to train, I don’t know. I’ve heard from insiders they’re not allowed to yet and would have to redo the terms of service.” Source: AIFinInsights david friedberg

FRIEDBERG: VIDEO DATA WILL POWER THE NEXT GENERATION OF AI Friedberg broke down the scale shift coming to artificial intelligence, arguing that text based models like GPT are just the beginning, and that the real revolution will come from video-trained systems: “The internet and all these LLMs are language models trained on text from the internet, around 50 billion words total, maybe one to five terabytes of data in their training sets. But if you look at the video data out there, there are hundreds of billions of hours, much of it on YouTube. By some estimates, there’s a thousand exabytes of video data on the internet, about a billion times more than text data. I think we just saw that play out with the new video model that launched yesterday. Google has all this YouTube data, whether or not they’re using it to train, I don’t know. I’ve heard from insiders they’re not allowed to yet and would have to redo the terms of service.” Source: AIFinInsights david friedberg

Mario Nawfal

15,855 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Standard Intelligence's devansh responds to roon's tweet that "text is the universal interface," and explains why their new foundation model is trained on video: "At some point in the arbitrarily long future, if we only use text models, we could force most things to be text. But I think there are just a lot of things that are much more native when done from a computer-use [perspective]." "GUIs are designed for humans to use. We have this massive long tail of things on the internet that are entirely undoable by LLMs." "For example, when I do ML engineering most of my time is spent doing the grunt work of engineering. It's a lot of looking at graphs, analyzing, and comparing loss curves. You can do this in text, but it's a much larger pain than doing it in the native interface." "There's a reason humans don't interact with a computer purely through text, it would kind of suck."

Standard Intelligence's devansh responds to roon's tweet that "text is the universal interface," and explains why their new foundation model is trained on video: "At some point in the arbitrarily long future, if we only use text models, we could force most things to be text. But I think there are just a lot of things that are much more native when done from a computer-use [perspective]." "GUIs are designed for humans to use. We have this massive long tail of things on the internet that are entirely undoable by LLMs." "For example, when I do ML engineering most of my time is spent doing the grunt work of engineering. It's a lot of looking at graphs, analyzing, and comparing loss curves. You can do this in text, but it's a much larger pain than doing it in the native interface." "There's a reason humans don't interact with a computer purely through text, it would kind of suck."

TBPN

64,434 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Demis Hassabis says world models are his longest standing passion and explains benefits vs. language models: ▫️ “I think language models are able to understand a lot about the world. More than we expected because language is actually probably richer than we thought. But there's still a lot about the spatial dynamics of the world, spatial awareness and the physical context we're in — and how that works mechanically — that is hard to describe in words and isn't generally described in corpuses of words. Alot of this is allied to learning from experience. There's a lot of things which you can't really describe something. You have to just experience it. Maybe the senses and so on are very hard to put into words. Whether that's motor angles and smell and these kinds of senses, it's very difficult to describe that in any kind of language.”▫️ This is what Demis and Google Deepmind is trying to solve with Genie. He also says that the video models (Veo) will play a part in training the world models and this is all key for AI robotics.

Demis Hassabis says world models are his longest standing passion and explains benefits vs. language models: ▫️ “I think language models are able to understand a lot about the world. More than we expected because language is actually probably richer than we thought. But there's still a lot about the spatial dynamics of the world, spatial awareness and the physical context we're in — and how that works mechanically — that is hard to describe in words and isn't generally described in corpuses of words. Alot of this is allied to learning from experience. There's a lot of things which you can't really describe something. You have to just experience it. Maybe the senses and so on are very hard to put into words. Whether that's motor angles and smell and these kinds of senses, it's very difficult to describe that in any kind of language.”▫️ This is what Demis and Google Deepmind is trying to solve with Genie. He also says that the video models (Veo) will play a part in training the world models and this is all key for AI robotics.

Bearly AI

123,703 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Demis Hassabis on the limit in today’s AI: language can describe the world, but it cannot contain it - and why "World Models" are his "longest standing passion". Language models absorbed far more structure about reality from text than many researchers expected, because human language quietly carries physics, psychology, culture, tools, plans, and cause-and-effect. But text is still a compressed residue of experience, not experience itself. A sentence can say a cup falls from a table, yet it does not fully encode weight, grip, balance, friction, timing, sound, surprise, or the tiny motor corrections a body makes before it even notices them. The world is not only made of facts that can be named; it is made of constraints that have to be lived through, touched, predicted, violated, and repaired. That is why world models matter. They aim to learn the hidden grammar of physical reality: how objects persist, how forces unfold, how space changes when an agent moves, and how action creates feedback. Language models can often reason about the world because people have written so much about it. World models try to learn what the world is like before it becomes words. The difference is exactly what matters because intelligence is not just answering well; it is knowing what would happen next if you moved, reached, pushed, smelled, slipped, or failed. A mind trained only on descriptions may become brilliant at explanation. A mind trained on experience may become better at consequence. --- Full video from "Google DeepMind" and "Hannah Fry" YT channel (link in comment)

Demis Hassabis on the limit in today’s AI: language can describe the world, but it cannot contain it - and why "World Models" are his "longest standing passion". Language models absorbed far more structure about reality from text than many researchers expected, because human language quietly carries physics, psychology, culture, tools, plans, and cause-and-effect. But text is still a compressed residue of experience, not experience itself. A sentence can say a cup falls from a table, yet it does not fully encode weight, grip, balance, friction, timing, sound, surprise, or the tiny motor corrections a body makes before it even notices them. The world is not only made of facts that can be named; it is made of constraints that have to be lived through, touched, predicted, violated, and repaired. That is why world models matter. They aim to learn the hidden grammar of physical reality: how objects persist, how forces unfold, how space changes when an agent moves, and how action creates feedback. Language models can often reason about the world because people have written so much about it. World models try to learn what the world is like before it becomes words. The difference is exactly what matters because intelligence is not just answering well; it is knowing what would happen next if you moved, reached, pushed, smelled, slipped, or failed. A mind trained only on descriptions may become brilliant at explanation. A mind trained on experience may become better at consequence. --- Full video from "Google DeepMind" and "Hannah Fry" YT channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

49,938 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Demis on why world models are his longest standing passion and explains benefits vs. language models: ▫️ “I think language models are able to understand a lot about the world. More than we expected because language is actually probably richer than we thought. But there's still a lot about the spatial dynamics of the world, spatial awareness and the physical context we're in — and how that works mechanically — that is hard to describe in words and isn't generally described in corpuses of words. Alot of this is allied to learning from experience. There's a lot of things which you can't really describe something. You have to just experience it. Maybe the senses and so on are very hard to put into words. Whether that's motor angles and smell and these kinds of senses, it's very difficult to describe that in any kind of language.”▫️

Demis on why world models are his longest standing passion and explains benefits vs. language models: ▫️ “I think language models are able to understand a lot about the world. More than we expected because language is actually probably richer than we thought. But there's still a lot about the spatial dynamics of the world, spatial awareness and the physical context we're in — and how that works mechanically — that is hard to describe in words and isn't generally described in corpuses of words. Alot of this is allied to learning from experience. There's a lot of things which you can't really describe something. You have to just experience it. Maybe the senses and so on are very hard to put into words. Whether that's motor angles and smell and these kinds of senses, it's very difficult to describe that in any kind of language.”▫️

Bearly AI

78,545 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Is this a sick joke? But listen to her opening words- “the one who is most interested in it is my husband he just wanted to know how much money it is and if he has to pay tax” That says it all.

Is this a sick joke? But listen to her opening words- “the one who is most interested in it is my husband he just wanted to know how much money it is and if he has to pay tax” That says it all.

Earth Hippy 🌎🕊️💚

103,225 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Andrej Karpathy explains why he thinks of LLMs as "people spirits." He describes them as simulations of people. The technical machinery is a transformer neural network that processes text in chunks, applying equal computing power to each piece. The system learns by reading billions of web pages and books. After training, it becomes a machine that can mimic how humans write and communicate. The key insight is that training on human content gives these models an emergent human-like psychology. This explains why LLMs often respond in surprisingly human ways. This framework opens up both their strengths and limitations. They simulate human patterns because that's their training data, but they remain statistical simulations rather than conscious beings. Understanding LLMs as "people spirits" helps set proper expectations for these tools and explains their uncannily human behavior.

Andrej Karpathy explains why he thinks of LLMs as "people spirits." He describes them as simulations of people. The technical machinery is a transformer neural network that processes text in chunks, applying equal computing power to each piece. The system learns by reading billions of web pages and books. After training, it becomes a machine that can mimic how humans write and communicate. The key insight is that training on human content gives these models an emergent human-like psychology. This explains why LLMs often respond in surprisingly human ways. This framework opens up both their strengths and limitations. They simulate human patterns because that's their training data, but they remain statistical simulations rather than conscious beings. Understanding LLMs as "people spirits" helps set proper expectations for these tools and explains their uncannily human behavior.

Aish

16,309 просмотров • 1 год назад

We are in times when human beings are empowered with machines smarter than us. It is possible that in the next 15-20 years’ time, people will not have to work for a living. In that context, Bharat can become a beacon for the world, because the fundamental ethos of this civilization is that it is not about how much wealth one possesses, but how profound is one’s experience of life that determines how rich one is. -Sg #RepublicDay

We are in times when human beings are empowered with machines smarter than us. It is possible that in the next 15-20 years’ time, people will not have to work for a living. In that context, Bharat can become a beacon for the world, because the fundamental ethos of this civilization is that it is not about how much wealth one possesses, but how profound is one’s experience of life that determines how rich one is. -Sg #RepublicDay

Sadhguru

52,432 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Yann LeCun -- Meta's chief AI scientist and a Turing Award winner -- explains why scaling up LLMs will never reach human-level AI, and names the four things today's systems still can't do: "If you think that we're going to get to human-level AI by just training on more data and scaling up LLMs, you're making a mistake." "If you're an investor and you invest in a company that told you we're going to get to human-level AI and PhD level by just training on more data and with a few tricks... that was probably not a good idea." "There are ideas about how to go forward and have systems that are capable of doing what every intelligent animal and human are capable of doing, and that current AI systems are not capable of doing." "Understanding the physical world, having persistent memory, and being able to reason and plan. Those are the four characteristics that need to be there." "That requires systems that can acquire common sense, that can learn from natural sensors like video, as opposed to just text." The entire market is priced on a straight line from bigger models to AGI. One of the people who invented deep learning is telling you the line doesn't reach -- and that the real bottleneck isn't compute, it's world models. If he's right, the winner isn't whoever stacks the most GPUs. It's whoever teaches a machine to learn from video the way a child does.

Yann LeCun -- Meta's chief AI scientist and a Turing Award winner -- explains why scaling up LLMs will never reach human-level AI, and names the four things today's systems still can't do: "If you think that we're going to get to human-level AI by just training on more data and scaling up LLMs, you're making a mistake." "If you're an investor and you invest in a company that told you we're going to get to human-level AI and PhD level by just training on more data and with a few tricks... that was probably not a good idea." "There are ideas about how to go forward and have systems that are capable of doing what every intelligent animal and human are capable of doing, and that current AI systems are not capable of doing." "Understanding the physical world, having persistent memory, and being able to reason and plan. Those are the four characteristics that need to be there." "That requires systems that can acquire common sense, that can learn from natural sensors like video, as opposed to just text." The entire market is priced on a straight line from bigger models to AGI. One of the people who invented deep learning is telling you the line doesn't reach -- and that the real bottleneck isn't compute, it's world models. If he's right, the winner isn't whoever stacks the most GPUs. It's whoever teaches a machine to learn from video the way a child does.

Karl Mehta

34,781 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Without World Models, There Is No AGI. Google Just Proved It. If AGI ever happens, it will not come from bigger chatbots alone. From the very start of this interview, one thing is crystal clear: without world models, we will never reach AGI. And right now, Google is leading with its world simulator Genie 3. Here is the core of what Demis Hassabis explains in this conversation: • World models are the missing core of AGI Hassabis says his deepest long term focus has always been world models and simulations. Not just language. Not just prediction. Actual internal simulations of reality. • LLMs are impressive, but incomplete Language models understand more about the world than expected because human language encodes a lot of reality. Still, language is only a shadow of the real thing. • What text can never fully teach Reality includes things text struggles to express: •3D space and spatial dynamics •Physical causality and mechanics •Sensorimotor experience like movement, force, smell, or balance • Experience beats description To close the gap, AI must learn from interaction and experience, not just static text. That is how you build an internal world simulator. • Why Genie 3 matters With Google DeepMind pushing systems like Genie 3, AI starts to model reality itself, not just talk about it. • Robots and real world assistants depend on this True robotics, smart glasses, and universal assistants require AI that understands the physical world you live in, not just your screen. Bottom line: AGI will not emerge from better text prediction. It will emerge from systems that can simulate, predict, and understand reality itself. Right now, Google is clearly ahead on that path. Curious what you think. Are world models the real AGI unlock, or just another stepping stone?

Without World Models, There Is No AGI. Google Just Proved It. If AGI ever happens, it will not come from bigger chatbots alone. From the very start of this interview, one thing is crystal clear: without world models, we will never reach AGI. And right now, Google is leading with its world simulator Genie 3. Here is the core of what Demis Hassabis explains in this conversation: • World models are the missing core of AGI Hassabis says his deepest long term focus has always been world models and simulations. Not just language. Not just prediction. Actual internal simulations of reality. • LLMs are impressive, but incomplete Language models understand more about the world than expected because human language encodes a lot of reality. Still, language is only a shadow of the real thing. • What text can never fully teach Reality includes things text struggles to express: •3D space and spatial dynamics •Physical causality and mechanics •Sensorimotor experience like movement, force, smell, or balance • Experience beats description To close the gap, AI must learn from interaction and experience, not just static text. That is how you build an internal world simulator. • Why Genie 3 matters With Google DeepMind pushing systems like Genie 3, AI starts to model reality itself, not just talk about it. • Robots and real world assistants depend on this True robotics, smart glasses, and universal assistants require AI that understands the physical world you live in, not just your screen. Bottom line: AGI will not emerge from better text prediction. It will emerge from systems that can simulate, predict, and understand reality itself. Right now, Google is clearly ahead on that path. Curious what you think. Are world models the real AGI unlock, or just another stepping stone?

VraserX e/acc

23,784 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Oxford professor with 30 years in Al and 400+ research papers just gave the most honest 1-hour breakdown of how ChatGPT actually works Mike Wooldridge says it simply: Al doesn't think and doesn't understand anything. It just predicts which word comes next. GPT-3 was trained on the entire internet - 500 billion words. A person reading non-stop would need 1000 years to read the same amount. The breakthrough didn't come from science. Someone just threw 10x more data and compute at the problem and it worked. The GPUs that made this possible are the same ones your kids use in Call of Duty. That's why NVIDIA became a trillion-dollar company. The most dangerous thing about Al: it gets things wrong in a very plausible way. That combination is worse than an obvious mistake. 30 years in the field and his conclusion is simple: ChatGPT is just a very large and very expensive autocomplete.

Oxford professor with 30 years in Al and 400+ research papers just gave the most honest 1-hour breakdown of how ChatGPT actually works Mike Wooldridge says it simply: Al doesn't think and doesn't understand anything. It just predicts which word comes next. GPT-3 was trained on the entire internet - 500 billion words. A person reading non-stop would need 1000 years to read the same amount. The breakthrough didn't come from science. Someone just threw 10x more data and compute at the problem and it worked. The GPUs that made this possible are the same ones your kids use in Call of Duty. That's why NVIDIA became a trillion-dollar company. The most dangerous thing about Al: it gets things wrong in a very plausible way. That combination is worse than an obvious mistake. 30 years in the field and his conclusion is simple: ChatGPT is just a very large and very expensive autocomplete.

Noisy

35,817 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

"To that". Those two words are what Nothing needs to focus on right now. Google just announced Ramble. Basically Nothing's Essential Voice. But. There’s a catch that makes it much more useful: contextual editing. Once you stop talking, you can hit the mic again and refine the text just by saying "to that" at the end. Example: 1. I dictate a rough message to a client. 2. Text appears. 3. "Add some professional flair to that!" 4. Email is instantly ready. Probably is not going to be just a "to that", but the flexibility to either add more text or edit what you just said makes this "AI voice" experience feel complete. I have a potential easy solution: 1. You need to SELECT THE TEXT you want to edit 2. Hit the Essential Voice button (or Key) 3. Done.

"To that". Those two words are what Nothing needs to focus on right now. Google just announced Ramble. Basically Nothing's Essential Voice. But. There’s a catch that makes it much more useful: contextual editing. Once you stop talking, you can hit the mic again and refine the text just by saying "to that" at the end. Example: 1. I dictate a rough message to a client. 2. Text appears. 3. "Add some professional flair to that!" 4. Email is instantly ready. Probably is not going to be just a "to that", but the flexibility to either add more text or edit what you just said makes this "AI voice" experience feel complete. I have a potential easy solution: 1. You need to SELECT THE TEXT you want to edit 2. Hit the Essential Voice button (or Key) 3. Done.

Francesco Sgnaolin

26,818 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

A new robot policy just cleaned up a kitchen it had never seen before [watch what happens. paper included ⬇️] Pi-0.5 builds on top of Pi-0 and shows how smart co-training with diverse data can unlock real generalization in the home. It doesn’t just learn from one setup but adapts to many, including homes it’s never seen. What it does ✅ Handles new homes without training in them ✅ Follows complex language instructions ✅ Cleans, places dishes, handles spills ✅ Matches in-home training models using cross-embodiment and web data Robots that understand tasks and adapt to new spaces are finally within reach. More in the blog: Read the paper ⬇️ Physical Intelligence, co-founded by UC Berkeley professor Sergey Levine, is a robotics startup developing general-purpose AI foundation models that enable robots to perform a wide variety of real-world tasks with human-like adaptability, recently raising $400 million to advance this vision.

A new robot policy just cleaned up a kitchen it had never seen before [watch what happens. paper included ⬇️] Pi-0.5 builds on top of Pi-0 and shows how smart co-training with diverse data can unlock real generalization in the home. It doesn’t just learn from one setup but adapts to many, including homes it’s never seen. What it does ✅ Handles new homes without training in them ✅ Follows complex language instructions ✅ Cleans, places dishes, handles spills ✅ Matches in-home training models using cross-embodiment and web data Robots that understand tasks and adapt to new spaces are finally within reach. More in the blog: Read the paper ⬇️ Physical Intelligence, co-founded by UC Berkeley professor Sergey Levine, is a robotics startup developing general-purpose AI foundation models that enable robots to perform a wide variety of real-world tasks with human-like adaptability, recently raising $400 million to advance this vision.

Ilir Aliu - eu/acc

18,120 просмотров • 1 год назад

Still very excited to know that the Princess of Wales fave is green! Amazing how much green she has worn over the years and I’m sure there is a lot more pictures. Here’s a few all found on the Internet.💚 #Hulks #ValentinesDay

Still very excited to know that the Princess of Wales fave is green! Amazing how much green she has worn over the years and I’m sure there is a lot more pictures. Here’s a few all found on the Internet.💚 #Hulks #ValentinesDay

Sabirah Lohn 💕🦕🦖

16,075 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад