I feel like LeCunn often gets it half right and then gets overzealous/has a conflict of interest. I think there are good reasons to be less than perfectly optim

I feel like LeCunn often gets it half right and then gets overzealous/has a conflict of interest. I think there are good reasons to be less than perfectly optimistic that OpenAI's claims will bear out (The kind of errors SORA makes seem to imply that "simulation" may be a stretch in my opinion, I talked about this a little in the thread about that announcement and honestly when I first read this post I thought he hit the nail on the head until about the fifth sentence), but I don't think there's strong evidence to suggest that they definitely can't yet, and this seems more like a sales pitch for the model he's currently working on than an expert making a particularly compelling case via better understanding of the theory or practice of this thing Like, in general I think there's a lot of hype around AGI and that skepticism toward OpenAI's claims isn't completely unwarranted, but the amount of public attention on the topic lately has caused everyone to commit to very hard lines that lack nuance about the implications of various advances. It's in some ways cool that AI is no longer just an academic curiosity, but it makes for a lot of nonsense to slog through, even from top researchers