It doesn't really matter if it will be an LLM or Lecuns world model. Lecuns world model, if its the right architecture, will be retrained by google, anthropic and co with the massive amount of compute they have and the massive amount of data.

Also i'm pretty sure Lecun didn't get his money from thin air so big companies are invested in this one way or the other.

And an LLM can easily, today, just rebuild a chess engine and beat whatever they need to beat. It doesn't make sense to ask a random LLM for a next chess move. Would you ask a random human to beat a chess master?

We have reached peak learning. Its probalby now cheaper to teach 1 LLM something new than teaching it to 100.000 people.

Blender support got a lot better just this month. So much better that its quesitonable if anyone new/young wants to learn blender today.

"And an LLM can easily, today, just rebuild a chess engine and beat whatever they need to beat."

Always claims and promises about what they "can" do. This pattern is constant across AI hype. No one can prove that an LLM will forever fail to solve problem X, so the claim goes uncontested, and humans are biased to believe unrebutted claims.

I reject this fallacious line of reasoning. I will instead require evidence of what they "have" done. No LLM to date has written a chess engine that beats stockfish. More importantly, no LLM has ever written any chess engine without heavily copying code and patterns from humans.