4 ms·

It doesn't really matter if it will be an LLM or Lecuns world model. Lecuns world model, if its the right architecture, will be retrained by google, anthropic a

It doesn't really matter if it will be an LLM or Lecuns world model. Lecuns world model, if its the right architecture, will be retrained by google, anthropic and co with the massive amount of compute they have and the massive amount of data. Also i'm pretty sure Lecun didn't get his money from thin air so big companies are invested in this one way or the other. And an LLM can easily, today, just rebuild a chess engine and beat whatever they need to beat. It doesn't make sense to ask a random LLM for a next chess move. Would you ask a random human to beat a chess master? We have reached peak learning. Its probalby now cheaper to teach 1 LLM something new than teaching it to 100.000 people. Blender support got a lot better just this month. So much better that its quesitonable if anyone new/young wants to learn blender today.

deleted 12d ago
[deleted]
carodgers 12d ago
"And an LLM can easily, today, just rebuild a chess engine and beat whatever they need to beat." Always claims and promises about what they "can" do. This pattern is constant across AI hype. No one can prove that an LLM will forever fail to solve problem X, so the claim goes uncontested, and humans are biased to believe unrebutted claims. I reject this fallacious line of reasoning. I will instead require evidence of what they "have" done. No LLM to date has written a chess engine that beats stockfish. More importantly, no LLM has ever written any chess engine without heavily copying code and patterns from humans.
- pixl97 12d ago
  Then why do you care so much to repeatedly post in this thread? If they are no danger and will never do anything, just let them get banned, or don't. If you are correct (which you are not) then they won't affect your world in any way.
  - carodgers 12d ago
    I am an American taxpayer. The money to pay the regulators that Dario wants to permanently hire will come out of my paycheck and will take from me time I could spend interacting with family, traveling, or pursuing hobbies. Dario and others demanding this can get bent.
    - Gregkion 12d ago
      If you are an american taxpayer, you should be happy. The AI investment from all these companies are good for you as a taxpayer. You do understand that the USA would be in a recession without AI right? And that these billions of invest are driipling down into your economy right?
      - carodgers 12d ago
        I am happy. AI is great. I use it. I'm glad that the U.S. is building datacenters. I work for a company involved in siting and building datacenters. But AI is not as scary or dangerous as Dario claims.
        Gregkion 11d ago
        Its a mix probably between a new potential and the progress. Taking it seriuos and then figuring out its not that dangerious is probably a 1000 times better than the opposite. And the last Ubuntu LTS patch had the most CVEs fixed i ever seen. After Snowden, you can assume a lot more of what i thought would be 'tin foil hat' might just have happened like a massive exploit scheme of CVEs. Or things like Stuxnet. You always had to be an expert somehow, now you can throw compute at it. Just imagine a USA, China, russian or israely hackergroup having their uncensored models running in secret datacenters with very basic prompts because they don't care. It would be weird tbh if state actors/hackers aren't doing that yet which already shows us one big problem with ai: AI is technology you have to use now and you have to invest. If you are not, someone else will break into your systems.
- Gregkion 12d ago
  An LLM converted a random game for me into rust. I have watched YouTube Videos of trusted people and in them the LLM reads a paper and implements the simulation result of the paper. Yesterday a LLM deciphyered an old text. LLMs helped to solve a millenium problem. Give an LLM access to proper compute and it will beat most people on the planet. Do you really think if you would get unlimited tokens and a compute cluster that something like a fable or astra frontiermodel setup couldn't build a better chess engine? When do you draw the line of LLM is just some stupid thing vs. AI/AGI?
  - carodgers 11d ago
    "Do you really think if you would get unlimited tokens and a compute cluster that something like a fable or astra frontier model setup couldn't build a better chess engine?" Disconnect it from the internet, where it cannot copy from humans, and no, it certainly will not. If it can copy code from humans, then maybe, with guidance. But if a human is not there to offer guidance, no, I don't think it will improve on stockfish. Worse, if it cannot copy code from humans, it will fail embarrassingly at playing chess on its own. This April 2026 paper found that frontier models which did not have specialized (human guided) tailoring could not beat an amateur-level bot (1100 ELO), and some were so bad they lost to random play. https://arxiv.org/html/2509.24239v4 https://arxiv.org/html/2509.24239v4 Look at the MAR rates in table 3. When not explicitly provided with a choice of legal moves, no bot could ask for legal moves at a rate better than 80%. Many of them asked for more illegal moves than legal moves. All of them continued to request illegal moves even when explicitly asked to choose from legal moves. That's not just less than perfect. That's abysmal. So, recapping, if the most advanced bots on the planet, in April 2026, are not allowed to copy code written by humans, and are forced to play chess by themselves, they will embarrass themselves. And you and others are asking me to believe they are a threat to me somehow. That kind of talk is disconnected from reality. What is common with all of the "impressive" examples you gave me? The bot had material to copy from, or a human standing nearby to tell it when it screwed up and suggest a path forward. They are not intelligent. They're so stupid, in fact, I could not trust them to balance my checkbook without knowing guard rails are in place. So spare me the hysterics. "When do you draw the line of LLM is just some stupid thing vs. AI/AGI?" I'm not sure, but I do know the line is well beyond playing a game of chess without requesting illegal moves 20% of the time. There are 5-year-olds who can do that. You need to ask yourself some hard questions. 1) Why have I been conditioned to expect that given enough compute, a bot can build anything, unguided? 2) Why have the embarrassing details about bot performance been hidden from me, or at least drowned out by hysterical claims about their wild successes? Why is the human role in these successes never highlighted? 3) What do the people training these bots stand to gain if they convince 51% of the voting population that bots are actually a meaningful threat?

deleted 12d ago

[deleted]

carodgers 12d ago

"And an LLM can easily, today, just rebuild a chess engine and beat whatever they need to beat." Always claims and promises about what they "can" do. This pattern is constant across AI hype. No one can prove that an LLM will forever fail to solve problem X, so the claim goes uncontested, and humans are biased to believe unrebutted claims. I reject this fallacious line of reasoning. I will instead require evidence of what they "have" done. No LLM to date has written a chess engine that beats stockfish. More importantly, no LLM has ever written any chess engine without heavily copying code and patterns from humans.

pixl97 12d ago
Then why do you care so much to repeatedly post in this thread? If they are no danger and will never do anything, just let them get banned, or don't. If you are correct (which you are not) then they won't affect your world in any way.
- carodgers 12d ago
  I am an American taxpayer. The money to pay the regulators that Dario wants to permanently hire will come out of my paycheck and will take from me time I could spend interacting with family, traveling, or pursuing hobbies. Dario and others demanding this can get bent.
  - Gregkion 12d ago
    If you are an american taxpayer, you should be happy. The AI investment from all these companies are good for you as a taxpayer. You do understand that the USA would be in a recession without AI right? And that these billions of invest are driipling down into your economy right?
    - carodgers 12d ago
      I am happy. AI is great. I use it. I'm glad that the U.S. is building datacenters. I work for a company involved in siting and building datacenters. But AI is not as scary or dangerous as Dario claims.
      - Gregkion 11d ago
        Its a mix probably between a new potential and the progress. Taking it seriuos and then figuring out its not that dangerious is probably a 1000 times better than the opposite. And the last Ubuntu LTS patch had the most CVEs fixed i ever seen. After Snowden, you can assume a lot more of what i thought would be 'tin foil hat' might just have happened like a massive exploit scheme of CVEs. Or things like Stuxnet. You always had to be an expert somehow, now you can throw compute at it. Just imagine a USA, China, russian or israely hackergroup having their uncensored models running in secret datacenters with very basic prompts because they don't care. It would be weird tbh if state actors/hackers aren't doing that yet which already shows us one big problem with ai: AI is technology you have to use now and you have to invest. If you are not, someone else will break into your systems.
Gregkion 12d ago
An LLM converted a random game for me into rust. I have watched YouTube Videos of trusted people and in them the LLM reads a paper and implements the simulation result of the paper. Yesterday a LLM deciphyered an old text. LLMs helped to solve a millenium problem. Give an LLM access to proper compute and it will beat most people on the planet. Do you really think if you would get unlimited tokens and a compute cluster that something like a fable or astra frontiermodel setup couldn't build a better chess engine? When do you draw the line of LLM is just some stupid thing vs. AI/AGI?
- carodgers 11d ago
  "Do you really think if you would get unlimited tokens and a compute cluster that something like a fable or astra frontier model setup couldn't build a better chess engine?" Disconnect it from the internet, where it cannot copy from humans, and no, it certainly will not. If it can copy code from humans, then maybe, with guidance. But if a human is not there to offer guidance, no, I don't think it will improve on stockfish. Worse, if it cannot copy code from humans, it will fail embarrassingly at playing chess on its own. This April 2026 paper found that frontier models which did not have specialized (human guided) tailoring could not beat an amateur-level bot (1100 ELO), and some were so bad they lost to random play. https://arxiv.org/html/2509.24239v4 https://arxiv.org/html/2509.24239v4 Look at the MAR rates in table 3. When not explicitly provided with a choice of legal moves, no bot could ask for legal moves at a rate better than 80%. Many of them asked for more illegal moves than legal moves. All of them continued to request illegal moves even when explicitly asked to choose from legal moves. That's not just less than perfect. That's abysmal. So, recapping, if the most advanced bots on the planet, in April 2026, are not allowed to copy code written by humans, and are forced to play chess by themselves, they will embarrass themselves. And you and others are asking me to believe they are a threat to me somehow. That kind of talk is disconnected from reality. What is common with all of the "impressive" examples you gave me? The bot had material to copy from, or a human standing nearby to tell it when it screwed up and suggest a path forward. They are not intelligent. They're so stupid, in fact, I could not trust them to balance my checkbook without knowing guard rails are in place. So spare me the hysterics. "When do you draw the line of LLM is just some stupid thing vs. AI/AGI?" I'm not sure, but I do know the line is well beyond playing a game of chess without requesting illegal moves 20% of the time. There are 5-year-olds who can do that. You need to ask yourself some hard questions. 1) Why have I been conditioned to expect that given enough compute, a bot can build anything, unguided? 2) Why have the embarrassing details about bot performance been hidden from me, or at least drowned out by hysterical claims about their wild successes? Why is the human role in these successes never highlighted? 3) What do the people training these bots stand to gain if they convince 51% of the voting population that bots are actually a meaningful threat?