Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

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... show more

VraserX e/acc

22,039 subscribers

76,154 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

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 views • 5 months ago

📁 Yann LeCun explains that LLMs work well when problems are symbolic, like math, code or chess, where searching through known sequences is enough. But the real world does not work that way. Physical action, planning and understanding what is possible require continuous intuition, which LLMs lack. Manipulating symbols is not the same as understanding reality.

📁 Yann LeCun explains that LLMs work well when problems are symbolic, like math, code or chess, where searching through known sequences is enough. But the real world does not work that way. Physical action, planning and understanding what is possible require continuous intuition, which LLMs lack. Manipulating symbols is not the same as understanding reality.

Jon Hernandez

42,638 views • 7 months ago

Why LLMs are a dead end for human-level intelligence, and especially for Physical AI / Robotics. The next leap isn’t bigger language models. It’s World Models. I just dropped a full 1-hour presentation from Shanghai: “World Models: the ChatGPT moment for robotics?” → Why LLMs hit a wall → Why action-conditioned world models planning in latent space are the real path → Live World Forge demo with LeWorldModel + Hugging Face LeRobot Watch here. The future of intelligence is embodied, not just chatty.

Why LLMs are a dead end for human-level intelligence, and especially for Physical AI / Robotics. The next leap isn’t bigger language models. It’s World Models. I just dropped a full 1-hour presentation from Shanghai: “World Models: the ChatGPT moment for robotics?” → Why LLMs hit a wall → Why action-conditioned world models planning in latent space are the real path → Live World Forge demo with LeWorldModel + Hugging Face LeRobot Watch here. The future of intelligence is embodied, not just chatty.

abdel

36,685 views • 1 month ago

Yann LeCun: I'm not interested in LLMs anymore - they're the past. The future is in four more interesting areas: machines that understand the physical world, persistent memory, reasoning, and planning.

Yann LeCun: I'm not interested in LLMs anymore - they're the past. The future is in four more interesting areas: machines that understand the physical world, persistent memory, reasoning, and planning.

Victor

525,526 views • 1 year ago

📁 Fei-Fei Li founder of World Labs, says the next leap in AI is not language. Human intelligence does not just speak, it moves, perceives, and acts in the physical world. Spatial intelligence is the real core of intelligence. From text to space, from models to 3D and 4D worlds, from understanding words to interacting with reality. The next chapter is not read, it is inhabited.

📁 Fei-Fei Li founder of World Labs, says the next leap in AI is not language. Human intelligence does not just speak, it moves, perceives, and acts in the physical world. Spatial intelligence is the real core of intelligence. From text to space, from models to 3D and 4D worlds, from understanding words to interacting with reality. The next chapter is not read, it is inhabited.

Jon Hernandez

20,592 views • 5 months ago

📁 Yann LeCun, Chief AI Scientist at Meta, says language is not the peak of intelligence, it is the easy part. Predicting the next word is simple because language is made of finite symbols. The real world is continuous, noisy and chaotic, and even a cat navigates it better than our best models. True intelligence begins where text ends.

📁 Yann LeCun, Chief AI Scientist at Meta, says language is not the peak of intelligence, it is the easy part. Predicting the next word is simple because language is made of finite symbols. The real world is continuous, noisy and chaotic, and even a cat navigates it better than our best models. True intelligence begins where text ends.

Jon Hernandez

56,177 views • 4 months ago

📁 Yann LeCun, Meta’s Chief AI Scientist and Turing Award winner, says today’s AI only looks intelligent. It is very good at manipulating language. But it still cannot understand the physical world, maintain real memory or truly plan. The next generation of AI will need to understand the world, not just talk about it.

📁 Yann LeCun, Meta’s Chief AI Scientist and Turing Award winner, says today’s AI only looks intelligent. It is very good at manipulating language. But it still cannot understand the physical world, maintain real memory or truly plan. The next generation of AI will need to understand the world, not just talk about it.

Jon Hernandez

22,529 views • 4 months ago

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 views • 7 months ago

Yann LeCun says despite LLMs passing bar exams, fundamental inventions remain missing. We still lack domestic robots, fully autonomous cars, and systems with true physical understanding and persistent memory. "your house cat is way smarter than the biggest LLMs"

Yann LeCun says despite LLMs passing bar exams, fundamental inventions remain missing. We still lack domestic robots, fully autonomous cars, and systems with true physical understanding and persistent memory. "your house cat is way smarter than the biggest LLMs"

Haider.

37,733 views • 1 year ago

Yann LeCun says robotics could become a huge market, but the industry still doesn't know how to make humanoid robots useful The missing piece is AI that can understand the physical world and handle tasks with generality and adaptability "LLMs are useful, but for different problems"

Yann LeCun says robotics could become a huge market, but the industry still doesn't know how to make humanoid robots useful The missing piece is AI that can understand the physical world and handle tasks with generality and adaptability "LLMs are useful, but for different problems"

Haider.

13,727 views • 1 month ago

Jensen Huang says the next frontier is physical AI — systems that understand the physical world and causality A child naturally recognizes the basic physics of tipping over dominoes (gravity, mass, contact) LLMs have no idea "we have to create a new type of physical AI"

Jensen Huang says the next frontier is physical AI — systems that understand the physical world and causality A child naturally recognizes the basic physics of tipping over dominoes (gravity, mass, contact) LLMs have no idea "we have to create a new type of physical AI"

Haider.

32,486 views • 5 months ago

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.

331,722 views • 2 months ago

📁 Yann LeCun says language models do extract meaning, but only at a superficial level. Unlike humans, their intelligence is not grounded in physical reality or common sense. They answer many questions well, but break down when faced with new situations because they do not truly understand the world they describe.

📁 Yann LeCun says language models do extract meaning, but only at a superficial level. Unlike humans, their intelligence is not grounded in physical reality or common sense. They answer many questions well, but break down when faced with new situations because they do not truly understand the world they describe.

Jon Hernandez

49,318 views • 7 months ago

Yann LeCun says we're never gonna get to human-level intelligence by just training on text AI must learn from high-bandwidth sensory data like video to build true world models Current models look PhD-smart but mostly regurgitate, with no real understanding "even a cat understands the physical world better"

Yann LeCun says we're never gonna get to human-level intelligence by just training on text AI must learn from high-bandwidth sensory data like video to build true world models Current models look PhD-smart but mostly regurgitate, with no real understanding "even a cat understands the physical world better"

Haider.

138,265 views • 8 months ago

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

639,483 views • 4 months ago

Yann LeCun (Yann LeCun ) beautifully explains how the architecture and principles used to train LLMs can not be extended to teach AI the real-world intelligence. In 1 line: LLMs excel where intelligence equals sequence prediction over symbols. Real-world intelligence requires learned world models, abstraction, causality, and action planning under uncertainty, which current next-token training does not provide. He says current LLMs learn by predicting the next token. That objective works very well when the task itself can be reduced to manipulating discrete symbols and sequences. Math, physics problem solving on paper, and coding fit this pattern because success largely comes from searching and composing the right sequences of symbols, equations, or program tokens. With enough data and scale, these models get very good at that kind of structured sequence prediction. Real-world intelligence is different. The physical world is continuous, noisy, uncertain, and high dimensional. To act in it, a system needs internal models that capture objects, dynamics, causality, constraints from the body, and the outcomes of actions over time. Humans and animals build abstract representations from rich sensory streams, then make predictions in that abstract space, not at the raw pixel level. That is why a child can learn intuitive physics, plan multi-step actions, and adapt quickly in new situations with little data. His claim about saturation follows from this gap. Scaling token prediction keeps improving symbol manipulation tasks like math and code, but it hits limits on embodied reasoning and common sense because text alone does not provide the right learning signals for world models. Predicting the next word cannot efficiently teach contact forces, affordances, occlusion, friction, or how actions change the state of the environment. For that, he argues we need architectures that learn abstractions from sensory data and predict futures in abstract latent spaces, then use those predictions to plan actions toward goals with built-in guardrails. --- From 'Pioneer Works' YT Channel (link in comment)

Yann LeCun (Yann LeCun ) beautifully explains how the architecture and principles used to train LLMs can not be extended to teach AI the real-world intelligence. In 1 line: LLMs excel where intelligence equals sequence prediction over symbols. Real-world intelligence requires learned world models, abstraction, causality, and action planning under uncertainty, which current next-token training does not provide. He says current LLMs learn by predicting the next token. That objective works very well when the task itself can be reduced to manipulating discrete symbols and sequences. Math, physics problem solving on paper, and coding fit this pattern because success largely comes from searching and composing the right sequences of symbols, equations, or program tokens. With enough data and scale, these models get very good at that kind of structured sequence prediction. Real-world intelligence is different. The physical world is continuous, noisy, uncertain, and high dimensional. To act in it, a system needs internal models that capture objects, dynamics, causality, constraints from the body, and the outcomes of actions over time. Humans and animals build abstract representations from rich sensory streams, then make predictions in that abstract space, not at the raw pixel level. That is why a child can learn intuitive physics, plan multi-step actions, and adapt quickly in new situations with little data. His claim about saturation follows from this gap. Scaling token prediction keeps improving symbol manipulation tasks like math and code, but it hits limits on embodied reasoning and common sense because text alone does not provide the right learning signals for world models. Predicting the next word cannot efficiently teach contact forces, affordances, occlusion, friction, or how actions change the state of the environment. For that, he argues we need architectures that learn abstractions from sensory data and predict futures in abstract latent spaces, then use those predictions to plan actions toward goals with built-in guardrails. --- From 'Pioneer Works' YT Channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

104,460 views • 6 months ago

📁 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 views • 7 months ago

Ilya on LLMs understanding the world: "predicting the next token well, means that you understand the underlying reality that let to the creation of that token" Seem like the opposite view of Yann.

Ilya on LLMs understanding the world: "predicting the next token well, means that you understand the underlying reality that let to the creation of that token" Seem like the opposite view of Yann.

Lior Alexander

1,222,086 views • 2 years ago

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 views • 1 month ago

Yann LeCun just exposed AI’s fundamental flaw. We’re celebrating systems that can’t do what insects do effortlessly. LeCun: “The biggest difficulty is not to get fooled into thinking that a computer system is intelligent simply because it can manipulate language.” Language feels like intelligence because we experience it as the highest form of human thought. So when a machine produces fluent, articulate, convincing text, the instinct is to conclude it understands. It doesn’t. LeCun: “It turns out the real world is much, much more complicated.” Language is actually the easy part. A sequence of discrete symbols with a finite number of possibilities. Predicting the next word is a tractable mathematical problem. Impressive at scale. Not understanding. Pattern matching in symbol space. The real world is something else entirely. A high-dimensional, continuous, noisy signal that changes every millisecond in ways no text corpus can capture. Physical reality doesn’t come in tokens. LeCun: “Which your house cat is perfectly able to deal with. But not computers yet.” This is the Moravec paradox. The things that feel hard to humans: writing essays, solving equations, passing bar exams. Computationally straightforward. The things that feel trivially easy: walking across a room, catching a falling object, folding a shirt. Extraordinarily difficult for machines. Your house cat navigates a complex three-dimensional physical environment in real time. Predicts trajectories. Adjusts to surprises. Understands cause and effect through direct interaction with the world. The most powerful AI systems ever built cannot do what your cat does before breakfast. That’s not a minor gap. That’s the entire frontier. Language is the easy problem that looks hard to humans. The physical world is the hard problem that looks easy because evolution solved it billions of years ago. We’re pouring hundreds of billions into making language models marginally better at the simple problem. The actual intelligence problem remains unsolved. LeCun has spent fifteen years on this. Not making chatbots more fluent. Giving machines the ability to understand, predict, and interact with physical reality the way animals do instinctively. The benchmark that matters isn’t passing a bar exam. It’s folding a shirt. Loading a dishwasher. Navigating an unfamiliar room without a map. We built systems that can write your dissertation before we built systems that can tie your shoes. That’s where AI actually is. Everything else is autocomplete at scale.

Yann LeCun just exposed AI’s fundamental flaw. We’re celebrating systems that can’t do what insects do effortlessly. LeCun: “The biggest difficulty is not to get fooled into thinking that a computer system is intelligent simply because it can manipulate language.” Language feels like intelligence because we experience it as the highest form of human thought. So when a machine produces fluent, articulate, convincing text, the instinct is to conclude it understands. It doesn’t. LeCun: “It turns out the real world is much, much more complicated.” Language is actually the easy part. A sequence of discrete symbols with a finite number of possibilities. Predicting the next word is a tractable mathematical problem. Impressive at scale. Not understanding. Pattern matching in symbol space. The real world is something else entirely. A high-dimensional, continuous, noisy signal that changes every millisecond in ways no text corpus can capture. Physical reality doesn’t come in tokens. LeCun: “Which your house cat is perfectly able to deal with. But not computers yet.” This is the Moravec paradox. The things that feel hard to humans: writing essays, solving equations, passing bar exams. Computationally straightforward. The things that feel trivially easy: walking across a room, catching a falling object, folding a shirt. Extraordinarily difficult for machines. Your house cat navigates a complex three-dimensional physical environment in real time. Predicts trajectories. Adjusts to surprises. Understands cause and effect through direct interaction with the world. The most powerful AI systems ever built cannot do what your cat does before breakfast. That’s not a minor gap. That’s the entire frontier. Language is the easy problem that looks hard to humans. The physical world is the hard problem that looks easy because evolution solved it billions of years ago. We’re pouring hundreds of billions into making language models marginally better at the simple problem. The actual intelligence problem remains unsolved. LeCun has spent fifteen years on this. Not making chatbots more fluent. Giving machines the ability to understand, predict, and interact with physical reality the way animals do instinctively. The benchmark that matters isn’t passing a bar exam. It’s folding a shirt. Loading a dishwasher. Navigating an unfamiliar room without a map. We built systems that can write your dissertation before we built systems that can tie your shoes. That’s where AI actually is. Everything else is autocomplete at scale.

Dustin

284,134 views • 4 months ago