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.
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2026
122 points (96.2% liked)
Technology
82551 readers
4333 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The fact that AMI is European will be attractive to many people
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?
World models aren't just for robotics (though they definitely WILL be used for that). They're for reasoning under uncertainty in domains where you can't see the outcome in advance. Eg:
Medical diagnosis: you can't physically "embody" whether a treatment will work. But a system that understands disease progression, drug interactions, and physiological constraints (not by pattern-matching text, but by learning causal structure) - well, that's fundamentally different from an LLM hallucinating plausible-sounding symptoms.
Financial modeling, engineering simulations, climate prediction...all domains where the "embodied experience" is simulation, not physical interaction. You learn how the world actually works by understanding constraint and causality, not by predicting the next token in a Bloomberg article.
The point isn't "robots will finally work." The point is: understanding causality is cheaper in the long run and more reliable than memorizing correlations. Embodiment is just the training signal that forces you to learn causality instead of surface patterns.
My read is that LeCun's betting that a system trained to predict abstract state transitions in any domain (be that medical, financial, physical) will generalize better / hallucinate less than one trained to predict text.
Whether that's true? Fucked if I know - that's why it's (literally) the billion-dollar question. If he cracks it....it's big.
But "it won't cook dinner" misses the point (and besides which, it might actually cook dinner and change lightbulbs, so....)
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.
Yann is the annoying nerd that tells you the truth. Alex is the cool kid that tells you what you want to hear.
To be fair, the financial market is deeply rewarding the "tell us what we want to hear" approach.
Even if the time should come where the chickens come home to roost, the key players will have gotten billions out of the mania in the meantime.
So on one hand you have someone making a fair pessimistic assessment of current approaches that isn't attractive to investors and his suggestion is very unproven. On the other hand you have someone that agrees with whatever the investors want to believe. The latter is, in this situation, an easy payday.
Good luck getting your model to learn how to code through physical experience instead of through text.
Tell it to Lecun. He won the Turing prize. I figure he knows what he's doing. Let him cook I sez.
PS: I didn't down vote you. It's good to be skeptical.
I dunno, the I-JEPA paper only dealt with image classification, and it looks like it isn’t scaling with larger model sizes like the other techniques.
Besides, Meta was one of the biggest failures in AI model building while he was there. Not exactly a confidence booster.
I’m extremely skeptical if he’s truly raising money off of name recognition alone instead of a real demo frontier model that just needs scaling.
Yep. And per the article's conclusion -
"...The question is whether being right about the problem is the same as being right about the solution."
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.
Different approach, yeah. JEPA learns world models instead of predicting text. Whether that closes the gap with how biology actually works...that's what he's spending the billion to find out.