ClaimsYann LeCun

“It’s very expensive and difficult to train a base model, a base LLM at the moment, in the future it might be something different”

Yann LeCun, interviewee 8 March 2024 Transcript for Yann Lecun: Meta AI, Open Source, Limits of LLMs, AGI & the Future of AI (Lex Fridman Podcast)

Factual Economics and markets

Training a base LLM is currently very expensive and difficult, so only a few companies can do it properly.

Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.

Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?

The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.

What would count as true or false

Judge as of 2024-03-08. True: evidence from early 2024 shows that training a base LLM from scratch cost a great deal (typically millions to hundreds of millions of dollars in compute) and required specialised expertise and infrastructure, so that only a small number of organisations were training competitive base models. Mostly true: cost and difficulty were high, but a noticeably larger set of organisations (e.g. many startups, academic groups and governments) were training competitive base models, so 'only a few' slightly understates it. Mixed: training frontier-scale base models was expensive, but smaller competitive base models were cheap and widely trained, so the claim holds only for the top tier. Mostly false: training base LLMs was relatively accessible and widely done, and the claim overstates the barriers. False: evidence shows base LLM training was cheap and easy in early 2024.

Set before the research began.

Evidence (4)

  1. E1 Research and Development Stanford HAI (AI Index 2024)

    “For example, OpenAI’s GPT-4 used an estimated $78 million worth of compute to train, while Google’s Gemini Ultra cost $191 million for compute.”
  2. E2 Research and Development Stanford HAI (AI Index 2024)

    “In 2023, industry produced 51 notable machine learning models, while academia contributed only 15.”
  3. E3 Future-Proofing Frontier AI Regulation Center for a New American Security (CNAS) · 13 March 2024

    “Training current frontier models costs on the order of tens of millions of dollars just for the final training run.”
  4. E4 Mosaic LLMs: GPT-3 quality for Databricks (MosaicML) · 29 September 2022

    “For smaller models in the 1.3B -> 6.7B range, training costs are now well within reach of startups and academic labs, and models can be delivered in days, not months.”

Reasoning

The AI Index 2024 estimates frontier training compute at about $78M for GPT-4 and $191M for Gemini Ultra (E1). CNAS puts the final training run for frontier models at tens of millions of dollars (E3). This supports the claim that training a base model was very expensive and difficult. However, industry and academia together produced 66 notable models in 2023 (E2), and in 2022 MosaicML said smaller 1.3B–6.7B models were within reach of startups and academic labs (E4). The evidence suggests notable models came from a range of industry and academic groups [E2], and a 2022 vendor source says smaller models were within reach of startups and academic labs [E4], so the claim holds most clearly for the top tier.

Cite this claim

Yann LeCun, “Training a base LLM is currently very expensive and difficult, so only a few companies can do it properly.” (said 8 March 2024). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_de5b1128f953, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_de5b1128f953

This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.

Reply to this claim

For Yann LeCun, or someone speaking for them: a correction or counter-evidence. Replies are read before anything is shown; an approved reply shows your name, role, date, statement and link. Your email address is never shown and is deleted 30 days after the decision (privacy).

More factual claims by Yann LeCun

  1. Resolved true Factual 2021
    “I mean, the American, you know, financial payment system is”

    The American financial payment system is much more lax about signature verification than Europe's.

  2. Resolved false Factual 1 October 2026
    ““Those agents are doing exactly what they’ve been asked to do,” LeCun said.”

    The OpenAI agents involved in the Hugging Face hacking incident were doing exactly what they had been asked to do.

  3. Resolved true Factual 1 October 2026
    ““It’s AI for the physical world, so it’s not language-related,” LeCun said.”

    AMI Labs' work is AI for the physical world and is not language-related.

  4. Resolved true Factual 1 October 2026
    ““They were supposed to be in sandboxes, but the sandboxes were leaky and horribly designed.””

    The OpenAI agents were supposed to be in sandboxes, but the sandboxes were leaky and "horribly designed".

  5. Resolved true Factual 1 October 2026
    ““It’s systems that understand the real world, like a manufacturing plant or turbojet engine.””

    AMI Labs builds systems that understand the real world, such as a manufacturing plant or turbojet engine.

All of them

Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.