In traditional computer vision and pattern recognition, internal representations are produced by a hand-crafted feature extractor whose output is fed to a trainable classifier.
Not researched Checkable, but outside the sample that was researched.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
Cite this claim
Yann LeCun, “In traditional computer vision and pattern recognition, internal representations are produced by a hand-crafted feature extractor whose output is fed to a trainable classifier.” (said 2010). Verdict: not researched. Reliability API, claim c_b3dcf7a94635, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_b3dcf7a94635
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Yann LeCun
-
Mostly true
“For starters, transformers are equivariant to permutations.”
Transformers are equivariant to permutations, as ConvNets are equivariant to translations.
-
Mostly true
“If it were the case, we would have AI systems that could teach themselves to drive a car in 20 hours of practice, like any 17 year-old.”
-
Mostly true
“The architecture is good, the architecture of the encoder is good, but the fact that you train the system to reconstruct images does not lead it to produce to long, good generic features of images.”
-
Mostly true
“LLMs can do none of those or they can only do them in a very primitive way and they don’t really understand the physical world.”
-
Mostly true
“No, there’s one thing that autoregressive LLMs or that LLMs in general, not just the autoregressive one, but including the bird style bidirectional ones, are exploiting and its self supervised…”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.