Technology

LLMs are an obvious dead end when it comes to actual "intelligence" or understanding how the world works.

But, this sounds like a "draw the rest of the owl" situation.

"JEPA learns abstract representations of how the world works, ignoring unpredictable surface detail."

Oh, it's that simple is it? Just have it "learn abstract representations of how the world works". Amazing how nobody thought to do that before!

I think I understand the distinction they're trying to draw. Current models are trained on billions of pictures of cats and billions of pictures of dogs. You feed it an image of Fido and it finds a point in 2500 dimensional space and knows whether that point is in the "cat space" or "dog space". It can be very good, but it doesn't have any "understanding" of what makes something a cat vs. a dog. Humans, OTOH, aren't trained on billions of images. But, they learn about things like "teeth" and "whiskers" and "snouts" and "eyes". Within their knowledge of eyes, they spot that vertical slit pupils are unusual and different, and part of what makes something "catlike". AFAIK, nobody has ever managed to create a system that learns abstract features without intensive human training.

I like that they're trying something new. But, are they counting on a massive breakthrough on a problem that has existed since people first started theorizing about AI? Or, is it just a matter of refining a known process?

If he thinks there is any promise in any sort of AI at all, he is as idiotic as the lot of them.

Switching the sauce doesn't make a shit sandwich any more edible than it was before...

I'm overall still skeptical, but this does sound a lot more like how I imagine a true AI would work. I've also thought LLMs were a dead end for a while now.

The fact that AMI is European will be attractive to many people

Good luck getting your model to learn how to code through physical experience instead of through text.

It's pretty crazy to me that zuck let an actual academic like Yann LeCun go for a kid like Alex Wang. Seems like some very short term thinking.

I believe only in success of AI systems based on real neurons(living tissue), not just "the models". The problem with all current AI system is that they are just modelling how real AI would look and behave like. I appreciate his attempts to turn AI slop into something more meaningful, but I do not comprehend how he is going to achieve this without creating some completely new and revolutionary approach to resemble neurons in computers.

We are not modelling real neurons even. What we have are just big functions with lots of parameters that calculate the output number based on input. That's all.

What exactly is this for? I understand LLMs have there limits with understanding physical reality, but at least they have a use case of theoretically automating the "symbolic work" ie moving symbols around on a screen or piece of paper, that white collar workers do.

Yes it'll never be able to cook a meal or change a lightbulb, but neither will this without a significant enhancement in robotics to embody this AI. What's the use case? Being able to better tell you how to throw a ball then a person?