von neumann

2 captures, most recent first.

2026-08-04 — saved image

xlr8harder @xlr8harder · 12h
Repeatedly failing to grasp that imperfect, unreliable components can be made useful and reliable as parts of larger systems _while still unreliable_ disregards like 70 years of information technology history and is disqualifying

[embedded/quoted tweet, partially cut off on left side, split with a document image on the right:]
Yann LeCun @ylecun · 9h
You obviously did not understand my statement.

I was talking about auto-regressive token prediction, which is what pu[re] LLMs do.

But good code generation systems aren't pure LLMs and aren't doing [pure] auto-regressive token prediction.
71 replies, 32 reposts, 281 likes, 71K views

gfodor.id @gfodor
[cut off] po?

gfodor.id @gfodor · May 18
Marcus has inadvertently sentenced himself to using the completely [mad]e up nonsense term "pure LLM" in every tweet, blog post, and podcast [for the r]est of his life, and it's hilarious

[...] · Aug 4, 2026 · 1,463 Views
49 likes, 1 bookmark

[right side, overlaid document title page:]
Lectures on
PROBABILISTIC LOGICS AND THE SYNTHESIS OF RELIABLE ORGANISMS FROM UNRELIABLE COMPONENTS
delivered by
PROFESSOR J. von NEUMANN
The Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, N. J.
at the
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
January 4-15, 1952

Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Tweet by @xlr8harder criticizing the failure to grasp that unreliable components can form reliable systems, citing IT history; embeds a Yann LeCun/gfodor.id exchange about "pure LLMs" and code generation, overlaid with the title page of von Neumann's 1952 Caltech lectures on synthesizing reliable organisms from unreliable components.

llms yann lecun von neumann reliability system design

bayes @bayeslord

2026-07-22

@bayeslord (bayes) — 2h There was a Scott Alexander post a few years ago where he quoted the classic von Neumann essay "Can We Survive Technology?", and at the end in reference to a particular quote he says, "this sounds suspiciously like worlds smartest man admitting he's not sure what to do". I'm still not sure how much I agree with Scott's characterization of von Neumann. But today when I look around, even among the world's most intelligent and insightful people, it rings true. Everyone is struggling to make sense of it all at once. In the essay, von Neumann says the great globe itself is in crisis, it is far too small for our new weapons and our unstable governments. This remains true in many ways; we still have the power to destroy our home planet and everything living here. But it strikes me that the complexity of coordination around nuclear weapons was far simpler than what we face now, despite being it unprecedentedly difficult at the time. Today, our collective mind is far too small for the world we have conceived. Along with everything else, the depth and breadth of change in the world is triggering the epistemic singularity of legend. And no one is prepared to grapple with it. We seem to lack the tools. [post continues below frame, no engagement counts visible]

Note from Claude Sonnet 5

A reflective essay-style tweet by an account named "bayes" invoking von Neumann's "Can We Survive Technology?" and Scott Alexander's commentary on it, to argue that humanity's collective epistemic capacity is outstripped by the pace of technological/AI change — framed as an "epistemic singularity." No engagement metrics visible in this crop.

twitter ai risk epistemics technology commentary von neumann