It's referring to the fact that cats are able to do tasks like multistage planning, which he asserts current AIs are unable to do.
I don't understand this criticism at all. If I go over to ChatGPT and say "From the perspective of a cat, create a multistage plan to push a houseplant off a shelf" it will satisfy my request perfectly.
But guessing at what you mean - when I evaluate ChatGPT, I include all the trivial add-ons. For example, AutoGPT will create a plan like this and then execute the plan one step at a time.
I think it would be silly to evaluate ChatGPT solely as a single execution endpoint.
The model does not "plan" anything, it has no idea how a sentence will end when it starts it as it only considers what word comes next- then what word after that- then what word after that. It discovers the sentence is over when the next token turns out to be a period. It discovers it's finished it's assignment when the next token turns out to be a stop token.
So one could say the model provides the illusion of planning, but is never really planning anything other than what the next word to write is.
Ok. Suppose I create the illusion of a calculator. I type in 5, then plus, then 5. And it gives me the illusional answer of 10.
What's the difference?
You can't say "who cares if it's an illusion it works for me" when the topic is whether an attempt to build a better one will work for the stated goal.
Otherwise, I think we should go our separate ways. You take care now.
If you don't care about the technical aspects, why ask in the first place what Yann LeCun meant?
You take care now.
This argument we're having is a version of the Chinese Room. I've never found Searle's argument persuasive, and I truly have no interest arguing it with you.
This is the last time I will respond to you. I hope you have a nice day.
There's a lot of confusion about these technologies, because tech enthusiasts like to exaggerate the state of the art's capabilities. You seem to be arguing "we must turn to philosophy to show CHATGPT is smarter than it would seem" which is not terribly convincing.
Take care now.
If there's a representative phrase from the article itself that's neutral enough, we could use that instead.