I think it was largely the introduction of tool calling that allowed models to mitigate the issue of errors amplifying exponentially since it allows the model to understand if what it generated is correct or has issues that it needs to address. This addresses the potential lack of or low quality of world model by being able to reference the current state of the world.

You insinuate here AI "learned".

I doubt that this was AI self-improvement.

> and then models learned that they can back track and error correct

You mean "Human developers learned ...", yes? Or was there really an all AI-driven, self-improving aspect to this?

Stop attacking Yann. I would say like 90% of the HN crowd was parroting Yann too.

Also, almost any argument against LLM intelligence also applies to humans.

I very commonly see someone make some small mistake and end up going in the wrong direction, “accumulating stupid” as they go, sometimes for years.

[dead]

It is just so bizarre compared to my everyday experience also.

I never ask Opus or Fable a question and think "what a stupid response".

Quite the opposite. It has actually raised the bar of what I consider an intelligent response to my inquiry. So much so that most responses from humans on most subjects to most forms of inquiry seem stupid and not really thought out.

Everyone nowadays seems to only think of AI as LLMs or maybe also stable diffusion. People want to ban games with AI in them, when by definition every NPC is following some kind of AI algorithm.

They literally interview another person in it and mention a lot of other labs doing this kind of research including Google. Yes, he's the main starting interview but this is not really clickbait or a marketing piece.

> I guess it is a sign we are re-evaluating what makes humans special.

Always has been: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect

Tangentially: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox

Is a brain also inference? I know that an LLM works very different from the brain, but I wonder what makes a brain more capable of thinking. Is it the long term context? Is it a different type of neuron activation?

In what way was he left behind? If he wanted to actually work on LLMs all the AI labs would fight to get him

Considering all of the great research that has come from his labs (eg. DINO, Segment Anything) I don’t think that’s fair (no pun intended).

Left behind how? It's been transformers since 2016 and not much actual progress in basic architectures has happened 10 years later. I'm honestly struggling to see how you can be left behind in this field.

> What's next is more AI spam-slop. I already noticed this on youtube.

I hope not but your observation on YouTube is spot-on. It's really frustrating. I've managed to keep good hygiene for my shorts feed. I practice zero-tolerance for braindead content; one strike is all it takes for the "never recommend" button.

But with the World Cup, the situation is just pandemonium. Football has always been breeding ground for low-effort content on the platform: unofficial highlights, cropped to death to avoid copyright, and always, for some reason, with a blaring background music. But now it's reached peak slop chaos: AI voiceovers, dubious anecdotes ("...and that kid, was Ronaldo"), and STILL the horribly blaring background music. The algorithm makes no distinction between quality and slop content of a topic. It's all just about the topic. So all it takes is for me to view a short related to football (even one of thoughtful commentary) for the slop to come in hordes.

At least I can now share in this forum's disdain for shorts. Kill that shit with fire man.

We're past the point where there's a feasible argument that there is an AI winter coming.

The models work remarkably well for several classes of problem that seemed impossible a few years ago. They're not going away. There will still absolutely be a lot of ups and down and crazy stuff that happens in AI, but it won't be that AI almost completely stops being developed/funded for a decade or more. The biggest risk, I think, is regulatory capture; it's what Anthropic and OpenAI seem to be aiming for with their scaremongering about how capable and dangerous their models are. That'll put a damper on the industry for everyone except the companies that bribe the right people.

Not likely. Take with whatever grain of salt you'd like, but that was largely a property of development being academicized and subject to things like grant cycles, research topic fashionability trends, and institutional structure. It would be wrong to assume it's some baked in thing that's guaranteed to happen independent of how development looks.

Human winter.

AI climate change.

Was it worth it to log out and create a new account just to post this?