No provider has been able to match Auth0 actions unfortunately. Auth0 allows you to execute custom code at any point in the auth lifecycle and allow/deny based on that or enrich user attributes. Super useful when you have a legacy system that is hard to migrate away from. If anyone has any recommendations I'm all ears
We have lambdas (basically JavaScript code that can make API calls[0] and be managed and tested[1]) that execute at fixed points in the auth lifecycle:
- before a login is allowed
- before a token is created
- after a user returns from a federated login (SAML, OIDC, etc)
- before a user registers
And more[2].
And we're currently working on one for "before an MFA challenge is issued"[3].
There are some limitations[4]. We don't allow, for instance, loading of arbitrary JavaScript libraries.
Not sure if that meets all your needs, but thought it was worth mentioning.
I am not qualified to say whether Authentik can do all of what you need but it does allow custom python code in a lot of places. Perhaps you can ask whether what you need is available directly. They are very active in Discord.
(authentik maintainer here)
It does! Also, not only in the authentication process, but also during individual authorization flows, and in a few other places as well, like when a user edits their settings, or whenever an event (basically whenever something happens in authentik) but that's more a reactive process than inline
Yeah I think LeCun is underestimating the impact that LLM's and Diffusion models are going to have, even considering the huge impact they're already having. That's no problem as I'm sure whatever LeCun is working on is going to be amazing as well, but an enterprise like Facebook can't have their top researcher work on risky things when there's surefire paths to success still available.
I politely disagree - it is exactly an industry researcher's purpose to do the risky things that may not work, simply because the rest of the corporation cannot take such risks but must walk on more well-trodden paths.
Corporate R&D teams are there to absorb risk, innovate, disrupt, create new fields, not for doing small incremental improvements. "If we know it works, it's not research." (Albert Einstein)
I also agree with LeCun that LLMs in their current form - are a dead end. Note that this does not mean that I think we have already exploited LLMs to the limit, we are still at the beginning. We also need to create an ecosystem in which they can operate well: for instance, to combine LLMs with Web agents better we need a scalable "C2B2C" (customer delegated to business to business) micropayment infrastructure, because as these systems have already begun talking to each other, in the longer run nobody would offer their APIs for free.
I work on spatial/geographic models, inter alia, which by coincident is one of the direction mentioned in the LeCun article. I do not know what his reasoning is, but mine was/is: LMs are language models, and should (only) be used as such. We need other models - in particular a knowledge model (KM/KB) to cleanly separate knowledge from text generation - it looks to me right now that only that will solve hallucination.
Knowledge models, like ontologies, always seem suspect to me; like they promise a schema for crisp binary facts, when the world is full of probabilistic and fuzzy information loosely categorized by fallible humans based on an ever slowly shifting social consensus.
Everything from the sorites paradox to leaky abstractions; everything real defies precise definition when you look closely at it, and when you try to abstract over it, to chunk up, the details have an annoying way of making themselves visible again.
You can get purity in mathematical models, and in information systems, but those imperfectly model the world and continually need to be updated, refactored, and rewritten as they decay and diverge from reality.
These things are best used as tools by something similar to LLMs, models to be used, built and discarded as needed, but never a ground source of truth.
>Knowledge models, like ontologies, always seem suspect to me; like they promise a schema for crisp binary facts, when the world is full of probabilistic and fuzzy information loosely categorized by fallible humans based on an ever slowly shifting social consensus.
I don't disagree that the world is full of fuzziness. But the problem I have with this portrayal is that formal models are often normative rather than analytical. They create reality rather than being an interpretation or abstraction of reality.
People may well have a fuzzy idea of how their credit card works, but how it really works is formally defined by financial institutions. And this is not just true for software products. It's also largely true for manufactured products. Our world is very much shaped by artifacts and man-made rules.
Our probabilistic, fuzzy concepts are often simply a misconception. That doesn't mean it's not important of course. It is important for an AI to understand how people talk about things even if their idea of how these things work is flawed.
And then there is the sort of semi-formal language used in legal or scientific contexts that often has to be translated into formal models before it can become effective. Law makers almost never write algorithms (when they do, they are often buggy). But tax authorities and accounting software vendors do have to formally model the language in the law and then potentially change those formal definitions after court decisions.
My point is that the way in which the modeled, formal world interacts with probabilistic, fuzzy language and human actions is complex. In my opinion we will always need both. AIs ultimately need to understand both and be able to combine them just like (competent) humans do. AI "tool use" is a stop-gap. It's not a sufficient level of understanding.
> People may well have a fuzzy idea of how their credit card works, but how it really works is formally defined by financial institutions.
> Our probabilistic, fuzzy concepts are often simply a misconception.
How eg a credit card works today is defined by financial institutions. How it might work tomorrow is defined by politics, incentives, and human action. It's not clear how to model those with formal language.
I think most systems we interact with are fuzzy because they are in a continual state of change due to the aforementioned human society factors.
To some degree I think that our widely used formal languages may just be insufficient and could be improved to better describe change.
But ultimately I agree with you that this entire societal process is just categorically different. It's simply not a description or definition of something, and therefore the question of how formal it can be doesn't really make sense.
Formalisms are tools for a specific but limited purpose. I think we need those tools. Trying to replace them with something fuzzy makes no sense to me either.
I believe the formalisms can be constructed by something fuzzy. Humans are fuzzy; they create imperefect formalisms that work until they break, and then they're abandoned or adapted.
I don't see how LLMs are significantly different. I don't think the formalisms are an "other". I believe they could be tools, both leveraged and maintained by the LLM, in much the same way as most software engineers, when faced with a tricky problem that is amenable to brute force computation, will write up a quick script to answer it rather than try and work it out by hand.
I think AI could do this in principle but I haven't seen a convincing demonstration or argument that Transformer based LLMs can do it.
I believe what makes the current Transformer based systems different to humans is that they cannot reliably decide to simulate a deterministic machine while linking the individual steps and the outcomes of that application to the expectations and goals that live in the fuzzy parts of our cognitive system. They cannot think about why the outcome is undesirable and what the smallest possible change would be to make it work.
When we ask them to do things like that, they can do _something_, but it is clearly based on having learned how people talk about it rather than actually applying the formalism themselves. That's why their performance drops off a cliff as soon as the learned patterns get too sparse (I'm sure there's a better term for this that any LLM would be able to tell you :)
Before developing new formalisms you first have to be able to reason properly. Reasoning requires two things. Being able to learn a formalism without examples. And keeping track of the state of a handful of variables while deterministically applying transformation rules.
The fact that the reasoning performance of LLMs drops off a cliff after a number of steps tells me that they are not really reasoning. The 1000th rules based transformation only depending on the previous state of the system should not be more difficult or error prone than the first one, because every step _is_ the first one in a sense. There is no such cliff-edge for humans.
You're basically describing the knowledge problem vs model structure, how to even begin to design a system which self-updates/dynamically-learns vs being trained and deployed.
Cracking that is a huge step, pure multi-modal trained models will probably give us a hint, but I think we're some ways from seeing a pure multi-modal open model which can be pulled apart/modified. Even then they're still train and deploy not dynamically learning.
I worry we're just going to see LSTM design bolted onto deep LLM because we don't know where else to go and it will be fragile and take eons to train.
And less said about the crap of "but inference is doing some kind of minimization within the context window" the better, it's vacuous and not where great minds should be looking for a step forwards.
I have vague notions of there being an entire hidden philosophical/political battlefield (massacre?) behind the whole "are knowledge models/ontologies a realistic goal" debate.
Starting with the sophomoric questions of the optimist who mistakes the possible for the viable: how definite of a thing is "the world", how knowable is it, what is even knowledge... and then back through the more pragmatic: by whom is it knowable, to what degree, and by what means. The mystics: is "the world" the same thing as "the sum of information about the world"? The spooks: how does one study those fields of information which are already agentic and actively resist being studied by changing themselves, such as easily emerge anywhere more than n(D) people gather?
Plenty of food for thought from why ontologies are/aren't a thing. The classical example of how this plays out in the market being search engines winning over internet directories. But that's one turn of the wheel. Look at what search engines grew into quarter century later. What their outgrowths are doing to people's attitude towards knowledge. Different timescale, different picture.
Fundamentally, I don't think human language has sufficient resolution to model large spans of reality within the limited human attention span. The physical limits of human language as information processing device have been hit at some point in the XX century. Probably that 1970s divergence between productivity and wages.
So while LLMs are "computers speak language now" and it's amazing if sad that they cracked it by more data and not by more model, what's more amazing is how many people are continually ready to mistake language for thought. Are they all P-zombies or just obedience-conditioned into emulating ones?!?!?
Practically, what we lack is not the right architecture for "big knowing machine", but better tools for ad-hoc conceptual modeling of local situations. And, just like poetry that rhymes, this is exactly what nobody has a smidgen of interest to serve to consumers, thus someone will just build it in their basement in the hope of turning the tables on everyone. Probably with the help of LLMs as search engines and code generators. Yall better hurry. They're almost done.
Nice commentary and I enjoyed the poetic turn of phrase. I had to respond to it with my own thoughts if only to bookmark it for myself.
> how many people are continually ready to mistake language for thought
This is a fundamental illusion - where, rote memory and names and words get mistaken for understanding. This was wonderfully illustrated here [1]. Few really grok what understanding actually is. This is an unfortunate by-product of our education system.
> Are they all P-zombies or just obedience-conditioned into emulating ones?!?!?
Brilliant way to state the fundamental human condition. ie, we are all zombies conditioned to imitate rather than understand. Social media amplifies the zombification, and now LLMs do that too.
> Starting with the sophomoric questions of the optimist who mistakes the possible for the viable
This is the fundamental tension between operationalized meaning and imagination. A grokking soul gathers mists from the cosmic chaos and creates meaning and operationalizes it for its own benefit and then continually adapts it.
> it's amazing if sad that they cracked it by more data and not by more model
I was speaking to experts in the sciences (chemistry). They were shocked that the underlying architecture is brute force. They expected a compact information-compressed theory which is able to model independent of data. The problem with brute-force approaches are that they dont scale, and dont capture the essences which are embodied in theories.
> The physical limits of human language as information processing device have been hit at some point in the XX century
2000 years back when humans realized that formalism was needed to operationalize meaning, and natural language was too vague to capture and communicate it. Because the world model that natural language captures encompasses "everything" whereas for making it "useful" requires to limit it via formalism.
Is it that fuzzy though? If it was would language not adequately grasp and model our realities? And what about the physical world itself: animals are modeling the world adequately enough to navigate it. There's significant gains to make from modeling _enough_ of the world, without falling into hallucinations of purely statistical associations of an LLM.
World models are trivial. eg narratives are world models and they provide only pre frontal simulation, ie they are synthetically prey-predation.
No animal uses world models for survival and doubtful they exist (maps are not models), a world model doesn't conform to optic flow, ie instantaneous use and response. Anything like a world model isn't shallow, the basic premise of oscillatory command, it's needlessly deep, nothing like brains. This is just a frontier hail-mary to the current age.
> it is exactly a researcher's purpose to do the risky things that may not work
Maybe at university, but not at a trillion dollar company. That job as chief scientist is leading risky things that will work to please the shareholders.
They knew what Yann LeCun was when they hired him. If anything, those brilliant academics who have done what they're told and loyally pursued corporate objectives the way the corporation wanted (e.g. Karpathy when he was at Tesla) haven't had great success either.
>They knew what Yann LeCun was when they hired him.
Yes but he was hired in the ZIRP era where all SV companies were hiring every opinionated academic and giving them free reign and unlimited money to burn in the hopes that maybe they'll create the next big thing for them eventually.
These are very different economic times right now, after the FED infinite money glitch has been patched out, so now people do need to adjust to them and start actually making some products of value for their seven figure costs to their employers, or end up being shown the door.
I’ve yet to meet a single person who claims AGI will happen without recycling the same broken reasoning the peak-oil retards were peddling a decade ago.
Talking to these people is exhausting, so I cut straight to the chase: name the exact, unavoidable conditions that would prove AGI won’t happen.
Shockingly, nobody has an answer. They’ve never even considered it.
That’s because their whole belief is unfalsifiable.
LLMs and Diffusion solve a completely different problem than world models.
If you want to predict future text, you use an LLM. If you want to predict future frames in a video, you go with Diffusion. But what both of them lack is object permanence. If a car isn't visible in the input frame, it won't be visible in the output. But in the real world, there are A LOT of things that are invisible (image) or not mentioned but only implied (text) that still strongly affect the future. Every kid knows that when you roll a marble behind your hand, it'll come out on the other side. But LLMs and Diffusion models routinely fail to predict that, as for them the object disappears when it stops being visible.
Based on what I heard from others, world models are considered the missing ingredient for useful robots and self-driving cars. If that's halfway accurate, it would make sense to pour A LOT of money into world models, because they will unlock high-value products.
Sure, if you only consider the model they have no object permanence. However you can just put your model in a loop, and feed the previous frame into the next frame. This is what LLM agent engineers do with their context histories, and it's probably also what the diffusion engineers do with their video models.
Messing with the logic in the loop and combining models has an enormous potential, but it's more engineering than researching, and it's just not the sort of work that LeCun is interested in. I think the conflict lies there, that Facebook is an engineering company, and a possible future of AI lies in AI engineering rather than AI research.
This is something that was true last year, but hanging on by a thread this year. Genie shows this off really well, but it's also in the video models as well.[1]
I think World models is way to go for Super Intelligence. One of teh patent i saw already going in this direction for Autonomous mobility is https://patents.google.com/patent/EP4379577A1 where synthetic data generation (visualization) is missing step in terms of our human intelligence.
This is the first time I have heard of world models. Based on my brief reading it does look like this is the idea model for autonomous driving. I wonder if the self driving companies are already using this architecture or something close to it.
I thoroughly disagree, I believe world models will be critical in some aspect for text generation too. A predictive world model you can help to validate your token prediction. Take a look at the Code World Model for example.
> I think LeCun is underestimating the impact that LLM's and Diffusion models
No, I think hes suggesting that "world models" are more impactful. The issue for him inside meta is that there is already a research group looking at that, and are wildly more successful (in terms of getting research to product) and way fucking cheaper to run than FAIR.
Also LeCun is stuck weirdly in product land, rather than research (RL-R) which means he's not got the protection of Abrash to isolate him from the industrial stupidity that is the product council.
The last time LeCun disagreed with the AI mainstream was when he kept working on neural net when everyone thought it was a dead end. He might be entirely right in his LLM scepticism. It's hardly a surefire path. He didn't prevent Meta from working on LLM anyway.
The issue is more than his position is not compatible with short term investors expectations and that's fatal in a company like Meta at the position LeCun occupies.
> Facebook can't have their top researcher work on risky things when there's surefire paths to success still available.
How did you determine that "surefire paths to success still available"? Most academics agree that LLMs (or LLMs alone) are not going to lead us to AGI. How are you so certain?
I don't believe we need more academic research to achieve AGI. The sort of applications that are solving the recent AGI challenges are just severely resource constrained AGI. The only difference between those systems and human intelligence are resources and incentives.
Not that I believe AGI is the measure of success, there's probably much more efficient ways to achieve company goals than simulating humans.
How many decades did it take for neural nets to take off?
The reason we're even talking about LeCun today is because he was early in seeing the promise of neural nets and stuck with it through the whole AI winter when most people thought it was a waste of time.
But neural nets were always popular, they just went through phases of hype depending on the capacity of hardware at the time. The only limitation of neural nets at the time was computational power to scale up. AI winters came when other techniques became available that required less compute. Once GPGPU became available, all of that work became immediately viable.
No similar limitations exist today for JEPA, to my knowledge.
Depends on how far back you are going. There was the whole 1969 Minsky Perceptron flap where he said ANNs (i.e Perceptrons) were useless because they can't learn XOR (and no-one at the time knew how to train multi-layer ANNs), which stiffled ANN research and funding for a while. It would then be almost 20 years until the 1986 PDP handbook published LeCun and Hinton's rediscovery of backpropagation as a way to train multi-layer ANNs thereby making them practical.
The JEPA parallel is just that it's not a popular/mainstream approach (at least in terms of well funded research), but may eventually win out over LLMs in the long term. Modern GPUs provide plenty of power for almost any artifical brain type approach, but of course are expensive at scale, so lack of funding can be a barrier in of itself.
In the software development world yes, outside of that, virtually none. Yes, you can transcribe a video call in Office, yes, but that's not ground breaking. I dare you to list 10 impacts on different fields, excluding tech and including at least half blue collar fields and at least half white collar fields , at different levels from the lowest to the highest in the company hierarchy, that LLM/Diffusion models are having. Impact here specifically means a significant reduction of costs or a significant increase of revenue. Go on
I'm also not sure it even drives a ton of value in software engineering. It makes the easy part easier and the hard part harder. Typing out software in your mind was never the difficult part. Figuring out what to write, how to interpret specs in context, how to make your code work within the context of a broader whole, how to be extensible, maintainable, reliable, etc. That's hard, and LLMs really don't help.
Even when writing, it shifts the mental burden from an easy thing (writing code) to a very hard thing (reading that code, validating it's right, hallucination free, and then refactoring it to match your teams code style and patterns).
It's great for building a first-order approximation of a tech demo app that you then throw out and build from scratch, and auto-complete. In my experience, anyways. I'm sure others have had different experiences.
You already mentioned two fields they have a huge impact on, software development and NLP (this latter one the most impacted so far). Another field that comes to mind is academic research is getting an important boost as well, via semantic search or more advanced stuff like Google's biological cell model which already uncovered new treatments. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of other fields I'm less familiar with (legal, for example). But just these impacts I listed are all huge and they will indirectly have a huge impact on all other areas of human industry, it's just a matter of time. "Software will eat the world" and all that.
Personally, I find myself using LLMs more than Google now, even for non-development tasks. I think this shift is going to become the new normal (if it isn't already).
And what's the end result? All one can see is just bigger representation of those who confidently subscribe to false information and become arrogant when their validity is questioned, as the LLM writing style has convinced them it's some sort of authority. Even people on this website are so misinformed to believe that ChatGPT has developed its own reasoning, despite it being at the core an advanced learning algorithm trained on a enormous amount of human generated data.
And let's not speak about those so deep into sloth that put it into use to deteriorate, and not augment as they claim to do, humane creative recreational activities.
This seems a bit self-contradictory: you say LLMs mislead people and can't reason, then fault them for being good at helping people solve puzzles or win trivia games. You can't have it both ways.
Why would you postulate these two to be mutually exclusive?
> then fault them for being good at helping people solve puzzles or win trivia games
They only help them in the same sense that a calculator would 'help' win at a hypothetical mental math competition, that is the gist; robbing people of the creative and mentally stimulating processes that make the game(s) fun. But I've come to realize this is an unpopular opinion on this website where being fiercely competitive is the only remarkable personality trait, so I guess yeah it may be useful for this particular population.
While I agree with your point, “Superintelligence” is a far cry from what Meta will end up delivering with Wang in charge. I suppose that, at the end of the day, it’s all marketing. What else should we expect from an ads company :?
not sure I agree. AI seems to be following the same 3-stage path of many inventions: innovation > adoption > diffusion. LeCun and co focus on the first, and LLMs in their current form appear to be incremental at improvements; we're still using the same basis from more than ten years ago. FB and industry are signalling a focus on harvesting the innovation and that could last - but also take - many years or decades. Your fundamental researchers are not interested (or the right people) in that position.
Do you? Or is it possible to acknowledge a plateau in innovation without necessarily having an immediate solution cooked-up and ready to go?
Are all critiques of the obvious decline in physical durability of American-made products invalid unless they figure out a solution to the problem? Or may critics of a subject exist without necessarily being accredited engineers themselves?
LLM's are probably always going to be the fundamental interface, the problem they solved was related to the flexibility of human languages allowing us to have decent mimikry's.
And while we've been able to approximate the world behind the words, it's just full of hallucinations because the AI's lack axiomatic systems beyond much manually constructed machinery.
You can probably expand the capabilties by attaching to the front-end but I suspect that Yann is seeing limits to this and wants to go back and build up from the back-end of world reasoning and then _among other things_ attach LLM's at the front-end (but maybe on equal terms with vision models that allows for seamless integration of LLM interfacing _combined_ with vision for proper autonomous systems).
> because the AI's lack axiomatic systems beyond much manually constructed machinery.
Oh god, that is massively under-selling their learning ability. These models are able to extract and reply with why jokes are funny without even knowing basic vocab, yet there are pure-code models out there with lingual rules baked in from day one which still struggle with basic grammar.
The _point_ of LLMs arguably is there ability to learn any pattern thrown at it with enough compute.
With an exception to learning how logical processes work, and pure LLMs only see "time" in the sense of a paragraph begins and ends.
At the least they have taught computers, "how to language", which in regards to how to interact with a machine is a _huge_ step forward.
Unfortunately the financial incentives are split between agentic model usage (taking the idea of a computerised butler further), maximizing model memory and raw learning capacity (answering all problems at any time), and long-range consistency (longer ranges give better stable results due to a few reasons, but we're some way from seeing an LLM with a 128k experts and 10e18 active tokens).
I think in terms of building the perfect monkey butler we already have most or all of the parts. With regard to a model which can dynamically learn on the fly... LLMs are not the end of the story and we need something to allow the models to more closely tie their LS with the context. Frankly the fact that DeepSeek gave us an LLM with LS was a huge leap since previous model attempts had been overly complex and had failed in training.
>If you think LLMs are not the future then you need to come with something better
The problem isn't LLMS, the problem is that everyone is trying to build bigger/better llms or manually code agents around LLMs. Meanwhile, projects like Mu Zero are forgotten, despite being vastly more important for things like self driving.
Iran has been crippled with sanctions limiting their ability to develop/buy any kind of fighter aircraft. Shooting from the air in Iran equals fighting a bot in an FPS game. They don't shoot back
How is the pricing like? Unfortunately I can't go past 1500GB for storage on their pricing calculator. We have tons of data and I don't feel like scheduling a sales call just to estimate cost
How do engineers troubleshoot then? Our engineers would throw hands if they are asked not to parse through two months worth of log volume for a single issue.
In practice, at the scale I work at, it's barely feasible to scan one week of logs, let alone two months, because you'll be waiting hours for the result. So you learn strategies to only need to scan a subset of the logs at a time.
that is not a google problem that is a big tech problem. people move where the money is and the money flows to google easily because ads is such a lucrative business. if you force the talent pool to move off google, meta or amazon will easily absorb them
More talent with less demand means lower wages and/or worse benefits. My situation at Google can’t be matched at Amazon or Meta (remote work, pay, WLB, other benefits). I’d have to compromise if the climate changes but not much will make me leave… ever. I have a friend that has been trying to get me to join a startup for years and the risk just isn’t worth the reward
In B2B businesses, it is usually used for engineers that help integrate client systems to their own systems because when an enterprise is paying millions for a piece of software, they don't want to change their own systems. Work would typically involve writing scripts, interacting with customers understanding their needs and coming up with a bespoke solution that works for them.
I told him about the match and told him he only had 7 years to be the new youngest chess world champion and he told me that he didn’t want to be a world champion, he just wanted to play. I approve of this philosophy.
For context, legendary Magnus Carlsen was 23 when he first became world champion. Ding Liren, the other finalist and previous winner, is 32. The title holder before Magnus was Anand who first won the title at age 31 (or arguably 38, depending on your stance about the PCA). Kramnik before him was 31. Legendary Garry Kasparov was 22.
It's normal for the champion to get his first win in his early 30s. Getting it in your early 20s is how you become famous beyond the chess world. Doing it with 18 is seriously impressive.
Magnus didn't show up because he more or less just doesn't give a shit anymore about classical chess.
He got bored. Won the thing 10 years in a row and just didn't fancy it anymore. That's really it - he's so much better than, well, everyone that he just didn't want to go through the stress of prepping for such an event.
I think he's not a huge fan of classical chess, prefers more dynamic, creative and faster games. He's effectively mastered classical chess and wants a new challenge.
Have you heard of Stockfish? Makes Magnus look like a child. Stockfish and the other engines arguably keep getting better too, and in the engine tournaments like TCEC they continue to discover crazy new lines. E.g.
That's Stockfish playing black in the Ruy Lopez, and the game is effectively over after 18 moves, against an engine rated 3692. Magnus' highest rating was 2882. Ratings aren't really sensibly comparable like that between humans and engines, but I'm trying to put it in a way that chess bros will understand.
The point being - neither Magnus nor the top engines who are leagues above him have "mastered classical chess". So your comment is very ignorant of the realities of chess.
Magnus is incredible, and dominated human chess, and I have immensely enjoyed following his games, for the record. Human chess and engine chess are both wonderful in their own ways.
What a strange reply. You're getting downvoted because winning the WCC 10 times in a row means by any reasonable definition that Magnus has indeed "effectively mastered classical chess".
If for argument's sake we entertain the point you were making, there'd still be no motivation for Magnus to continue in the WCC because it'd still be against humans and not engines.
Commenting about voting is considered poor form in the rules here, so if you could refrain from spouting your opinions as if they were verified facts, that'd be lovely, cheers.
Carlsen won the WCC 5 times. Where you get 10 from, I don't know. Perhaps your opinion on these matters is just another ill-informed hot take, but we'll never know for sure.
No, that is a totally nonsensical definition for anyone who's serious about games. I presume Carlsen would agree, to be honest, as someone who takes games seriously.
Dominating human chess =/= "mastering" chess. Mastering implies "completing", "finishing", "solving". Sure, he's arguably the greatest human chess "master" who ever lived, and I love his games (as I said), but the man isn't infallible, and in fact is roughly as far from Stockfish as I am from him.
Which is nuts, how good Stockfish is, when Carlsen is so good. But he's not undefeatable - the top players have beaten him (on occasion). Even the mighty Stockfish suffers the occasional defeat from lc0!
So this sort of youtube-chess-bro level of discussion is garbage, and I frankly couldn't care less what sorts of "votes" come in. The fact you bring that up says more about you than me, dear netizen.
I think perhaps you need to take a break from your screen :)
You complained that I'm presenting my opinions as facts, and then you proceed to do exactly the same with your opinions ;) We're just having a discussion! Chill :)
OK, I meant 5 in a row, but I stand by my point. Your tone suggests I'm wasting my breath though, but that's fine.
"ill-informed hot take", "this sort of youtube-chess-bro level of discussion is garbage", questioning whether I'm "serious about games". Whatever your opinion is about "poor form", I imagine attacking someone's character or intelligence would also fit into that category :)
Same reason it was Nepo and Ding last time. Combination of he wants to give other people the ability to compete for it, him not having the same interest for what it takes to prepare for such a tournament, and FIDE refusing to adjust the format to make for what he thinks would be a more interesting tournament.
Seems like its not that big of an accomplishment relative to the way the headline makes it (obviously a big personal accomplishment). I figure 18 year old chess should have the mental abilities and maybe experience at that point to be able to rise to the top...
HAHAHA Only an HN comment could call the youngest person ever to do something would be said to "not that big of an accomplishment". How would you change that headline?
To really put it in perspective right now is the hardest and most competitive chess era in history thanks to computer-aided practice and international popularity.
It’s not the most competitive world championship though, since Magnus opted out of playing it. If previous champions had similarly opted out of defending their championship at the age of 30 then maybe the average age of champions would have trended downward and this wouldn’t have been the first 18 year old champion.
Agreed. I think all the people who don't like my take i offer this. Blasting a headline like that typically implies like a 13-14 year old. This is impressive but its not some massive upset - 18 is a grown adult for all intents and purposes (brain still developing true…)
