So were Illya and Yan Lecun both wrong? (LLMs are generalising.)

<table> <tr><td> <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1sxffva/llms_are_a_dead_end/"> <img alt="LLMs are a Dead End"

<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>There seems to be a lot of debate over whether LLMs alone can give us AGI. Dario Amodei seems to think LLMs are all we need whilst others like

<table> <tr><td> <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1te0e4b/yann_lecun_on_leaving_meta_breaking_the_llm/"> <img alt="Yann LeCun on Leaving Meta, Breaking The

<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>I’ve been saying this for quite some time now and this paper that came out recently really puts it clearly</p> <p><a

&#32; submitted by &#32; <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/preyneyv"> /u/preyneyv </a> <br /> <span><a href="https://pleasedontcite.me/learning-backwards/">[link]</a></span>

<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>I've been trying to understand Yann LeCun’s position on AI safety, especially his dismissal of risks around things like instrumental convergence,

<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>So, I just read LeCun's interview with Nebius Science. I feel he had some cool points about LLMs being able to answer things, but not literally

<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>Some people are skeptics about ASI because &quot;LLMs can't reach ASI&quot;. Let's make this clear. </p> <p>If any AI-LLM based system can