[phdelightful]

This outcome from using a large language model to mimic reasoning isn’t surprising. What’s surprising is Yan LeCun’s childish and petty reaction to this entirely foreseeable series of events:

> Galactica demo is off line for now. It’s no longer possible to have some fun by casually misusing it. Happy?

He’s supposedly an expert in this sort of thing

[nomagicbullet]

Framing is key in this context. Yann introduced the model in a very authoritative way, presenting it as production ready. His quote: "Type a text and galactica.ai will generate a paper with relevant references, formulas, and everything." [1] The AI produces output but nothing that could be considered a paper in a professional setting. Which is understandable! AGI is not here yet. But he should have presented the tool with proper context. A tool that can generate the awful content it generated needs better framing.

And, yes, his reactions were baffling to say the least.

[1]: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1592619400024428544

[seydor]

> "Type a text and galactica.ai will generate a paper with relevant references, formulas, and everything

One could describe DALL-E as "type a text in dalle and it will generate a Picasso with the right textures and strokes and everything". One would have to be particularly obnoxious to pretend to surmize that the Dalle image is an actual Picasso painting that you can sell in Sothebys or display in his museum. That is a giant strawman that some asinine people created there, and the Galactica team fell for it. They should stand their ground, but unfortunately they work for Meta, and corporate is where academic freedom goes to die.

[geraldyo]

Had they described it that way, DALL-E would have received way more criticism.

Lecun and his team and/or Meta did a terrible job in managing the users' expectations

[seydor]

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/11/dall-e-make-me...

"DALL-E, Make Me Another Picasso, Please"

The creators of an artificial intelligence that can produce almost any art work imaginable—from “cheeseburger lamp” to “the rest of mona lisa”—sift through their latest requests for original images.

[seydor]

I would urge him to put it back online, it is interesting and can be useful. Just don't make a press release about it, journalists ruin everything.

[nolok]

The problem is not journalist, it's about how Meta and LeCun presented it.

They presented it as "you should trust what it says and use to write papers", then hid in the small lines "oh actually really don't do that".

You can't have your cake and eat it AND complain about being called out on it.

[seydor]

> They presented it as "you should trust what it says

where ?

> The problem is not journalist,

What was the reason for the takedown

> You can't have your cake and eat it AND complain

I will agree to the extent in which Lecun's team , and other research teams need to leave corporates and go back to universities

> @Ylecun: When you have a tool at your disposal, you have to know what to use it for and how. E.g. a CNC machine will help you build a piece of furniture, but it won't design it for you. Galactica will help you write papers, but you still have to come up with the substance of the paper.

How is this unreasonable? Are random voters now reading scientific papers?

I sincerely hope they put it back online. It IS useful. I tried this in my very niche field and it did give me some directions and ideas for some review i am researching.

[cowsup]

> > The problem is not journalist,

>

> What was the reason for the takedown

The system was not doing what the team said it did. Journalists documented this and demonstrated it, which caused Meta to shut it down, but journalists didn’t break it.

Blaming journalists for this is like blaming the smoke detector for interrupting your movie before the fire could.

[seydor]

No, some people on twitter highlighted the imperfections of the model and branded it DANGEROUS, despite the fact that it had a whole page disclaimer that it is indeed hallucinating. It was brought to attention in some media which led to the researchers turning it off. We already know the "dangerous" trope from GPT3 and we know it's BS.

https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1593156854372532231

[dmix]

> "you should trust what it says and use to write papers"

They really said something like that?

[option]

He is an expert. Much better than you’ll ever be.

So did researcher in NLP became better or worse off after demo taken down and why?