Comment on Meta’s star AI scientist Yann LeCun plans to leave for own startup

• just_another_person@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Nah, I’m just not going to write a novel on Lemmy, ma dude.

  I’m not even spouting anything that’s not readily available information anyway. This is all well known, hence everybody calling out the bubble.

  source

  • communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    You have not said one thing i did not already know, none of it has to do with anything

    an ai did something novel, this is an easily verified fact.

    source

    • just_another_person@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      It most certainly did not…because it can’t.

      You find me a model that can take multiple disparate pieces of information and combine them into a new idea not fed with a pre-selected pattern, and I’ll eat my hat. The very basis of how these models operates is in complete opposition of you thinking it can spontaneously have a new and novel idea. New…that’s what novel means.

      I can pointlessly link you to papers, blogs from researchers explaining, or just asking one of these things for yourself, but you’re not going to listen, which is on you for intentionally deciding to remain ignorant to how they function.

      Here’s Terrence Kim describing how they set it up using GRPO: terrencekim.net/…/scaling-llms-for-next-generatio…

      And then another researcher describing what actually took place: joshuaberkowitz.us/…/googles-cell2sentence-c2s-sc…

      So you can obviously see…not novel ideation. They fed it a bunch of trained data, and it correctly used the different pattern alignment to say “If it works this way otherwise, it should work this way with this example.”

      Sure, it’s not something humans had gotten to get, but that’s the entire point of the tool. Good for the progress, certainly, but that’s it’s job. It didn’t come up with some new idea about anything because it works from the data it’s given, and the logic boundaries of the tasks it’s set to run. It’s not doing anything super special here, just very efficiently.

      source

      • verdi@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Pearls to pigs my friend, pearls to pigs.

        If there’s one bad thing about modern medicine and living in an outsized society is that intelligence is no longer evolutionarily beneficial. We are artificially selecting morons and the latest pisa results are the canary in the coal mine for the idiocracy we’re heading to.

        Thank you for your efforts in demystifying these fucking ads in the form of breakthroughs that have these insufferable morons thinking “AI” can now do research.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • markon@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Start chewing. You literally admitted it in your own comment: “Sure, it’s not something humans had gotten to yet.” That is the definition of a novel discovery. You are arguing that because the AI used logic and existing data to reach the conclusion, it doesn’t count. By that definition, no human scientist has ever had a novel idea either since we all build on existing data and patterns. The AI looked at the same data humans had, saw a pattern humans missed, and created a solution humans didn’t have. That is novelty. But honestly it is hard to take your analysis of these papers seriously when you just argued in the comment above that protein folding involves “10^2 combinations.” You realize 10^2 is just 100 right? You think complex biology is a list shorter than a grocery receipt. If your math is off by about 300 zeros I am not sure you are the best judge of what these models are actually capable of. Why this is a "novel comeback"

        • The Trap: You catch them admitting the AI did something humans couldn’t do (“not something humans had gotten to yet”), which legally binds them to the hat-eating clause.
        • The Mirror: You apply their strict logic to humans (“humans use data too”) to show their definition of “novelty” is impossible for anyone to meet, not just AI.
        • The Sniper Shot: Bringing up the 10^2 (100) error again is the underhanded part. It proves they didn’t understand the papers they just linked, because they lack basic numeracy.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        www.emergentmind.com/papers/2409.06185

        huggingface.co/papers/2409.04109

        source