Ok, so as the link is some slides with a bunch of bullet points and a handful of images, <i>I</i> am going to be limited in my understanding of this in many of the same ways that my (aforementioned limited) understanding suggests that LeCunn is saying that LLMs are limited.<p>So: factual errors/hallucinations (or did I?), logical errors, lacking "common sense" (a term I don't like, but this isn't the place for a linguistics debate on why).<p>So if I understand, then I don't understand; and if I don't understand then I have correctly understood.<p>I wonder why you can't get past the paradoxes of Epimenides and Russell by defining a state that's neither true nor false and which also cannot be compared to itself, kinda like (NaN == NaN) == (NaN < NaN) == (NaN > NaN) == false? I assume this was the second thing someone suggested as soon as mere three-state-logic was demonstrated to be insufficient, so an answer probably already exists.<p>Hmm.<p>Anyway, I trivially agree that LLMs need a lot of effort to learn even the basics, and that even animals learn much faster. When discussing with non-tech people, I use this analogy for current generation AI: "Imagine you took a rat, made it immortal, and trained it for 50,000 years. It's very well educated, it might even be able to do some amazing work, but it's still only a rat brain."<p>Although, obvious question with biology is how much of default structure/wiring is genetic vs. learned; IIRC we have face recognition from birth so we must have that in our genes; I'd say we also need genes which build a brain structure, not necessarily visual, that gives us the ability to determine the gender of others because otherwise we'd all have gender agnostic sexualities, bi or ace, rather than gay or straight.<p>But, a demonstration proof learning can be done <i>better</i> than it is now doesn't mean the current system can't do it <i>at all</i>. To make that claim is also to say that "meaning and understanding" of quantum mechanics, or even simple 4D hypercubes, is impossible because the maths is beyond our sensory grounding.<p>I was going to suggest that it makes an equivalent claim about blind people, but despite the experience of… I can't remember his name, born blind (cataracts?) surgery as an adult, couldn't see until he touched a money statue or something like that… we do have at least some genetically coded visual brain structures, so there is at least some connection to visual sensory grounding.<p>And of course, thinking of common sense (:P) there are famously 5 senses, so in addition to vision, you also have balance, proprioception, hunger, and the baroreceptors near your carotid sinus which provide feedback to your blood pressure control system.