AI Is Learning at the Wrong Level of Abstraction — Matthieu Wyart
Machine Learning Street Talk (MLST)Show Notes
This episode is sponsored by Notion. Learn more about Notion's Developer Platform today at https://notion.com/mlstWhy can deep networks discover abstractions that shallow models miss? Statistical physicist Matthieu Wyart joins Tim Scarfe to argue that the answer lies in the hidden hierarchy of data. Language and images are built from parts within parts; depth lets a network recover those coarse-grained variables and escape the curse of dimensionality.The conversation moves from jamming transitions and rough loss surfaces to Chomsky, context-free grammars and machine creativity. Wyart explains why next-token prediction can still recover compositional structure, where current systems fall short of genuine scientific invention, and why predicting latent representations rather than raw tokens could make learning far more sample-efficient.They also examine diffusion models, neural scaling laws and the limits of physics-inspired theory. The final question is on a personal note: if mistakes are the price of leaving the beaten path, how much scientific risk is worth taking?---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 Can machines learn abstractions from data?00:02:00 Notion agentic workspace00:02:49 From statistical physics to machine learning00:06:40 What physics can explain about learning00:16:37 From Carnot to Chomsky bulldozer00:21:21 How deep networks recover hidden hierarchies00:32:43 Where machine creativity still falls short00:40:48 How deep nets escape the curse of dimensionality00:52:19 Why predict latents instead of tokens01:02:49 The sample-efficiency case for latent prediction01:08:31 Diffusion, scaling laws and text entropy01:16:40 The scientists we learn from and the mistakes we make---REFERENCES:person:[00:00:43] Noam Chomskyhttps://linguistics.mit.edu/user/chomsky/tool:[00:02:08] Notion Developer Platformhttps://www.notion.com/en-gb/blog/introducing-developer-platformpaper:[00:04:43] Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree searchhttps://www.nature.com/articles/nature16961[00:05:52] Reconciling modern machine-learning practice and the bias-variance trade-offhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1812.11118[00:25:54] How Deep Neural Networks Learn Compositional Data: The Random Hierarchy Modelhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02129[00:42:12] Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacehttps://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781[00:52:46] Self-Supervised Learning from Images with a Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecturehttps://arxiv.org/abs/2301.08243[00:52:54] Learn from your own latents and not from tokens: A sample-complexity theoryhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27734[01:08:31] A Phase Transition in Diffusion Models Reveals the Hierarchical Nature of Datahttps://arxiv.org/abs/2402.16991[01:11:39] Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelshttps://arxiv.org/abs/2001.08361[01:12:17] Deriving Neural Scaling Laws from the statistics of natural languagehttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.07488[01:13:34] Prediction and Entropy of Printed Englishhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6773263---LINKS:Download PDF transcript: https://app.rescript.info/share/f7644cdaa86c5cc1e41e484e290f2bd4
More from Machine Learning Street Talk (MLST)
A lot of people in AI treat evolution as a dumb fallback, basically random search for when you can't take a gradient. Akarsh Kumar thinks that is wrong. Selection hangs on to partial solutions, so mutations only need to be useful about 1% of the time for the search to keep making progress.Akarsh is a PhD student at MIT working with Phillip Isola, works with Sakana AI, and is first author of the Fractured Entangled Representation paper with Kenneth Stanley, Jeff Clune and Joel Lehman. He tells Tim Scarfe why the path a learner takes may shape the structure of what it learns, and why that is a different way of looking at intelligence from the statistical one.Most of the conversation is about ASAL, the method he led for searching whole spaces of artificial worlds. Rather than predict what a rule will do, ASAL runs the simulation and asks a foundation model what happened. Mapped across all 262,144 Life-like rules, the most interesting worlds sit on one small island. Along the way: Game of Life, Lenia (with a clip from its creator, Bert Chan), neural cellular automata, Boids, Particle Life and the emergence of persistence.---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 Intro: artificial life, ASAL and Core War in four minutes00:04:19 Life as it could be, not just as it is00:05:46 Why the order you learn things in matters00:08:33 No shortcuts: Wolfram, novelty search and regularisation00:10:44 Kenneth Stanley: the path matters, not just the destination00:11:31 Statistical intelligence vs regularity-based intelligence00:13:49 Artificial chemistry and other possible universes00:15:59 Convergent patterns: shadows of the substrate?00:18:02 How Conway's Game of Life works00:20:49 Change one cell, change everything?00:22:31 Lenia (with Bert Chan) and neural cellular automata00:25:26 Boids, Particle Life and cell-like creatures00:28:47 Persistence, entropy and what life is00:30:15 ASAL: a foundation model as the critic00:34:04 Impostors inside the simulation00:36:50 From primordial soup to alien animals00:38:26 262,144 rules and the island of open-endedness00:40:17 From artificial life to AGI00:41:35 Core War: Game of Thrones, Turing edition00:43:22 LLMs as the mutation step: evolving warriors00:46:03 Evolution is anything but random---REFERENCES:paper:[00:04:19] ASAL (Kumar et al.)https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.17799[00:08:08] Assembly theory https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06600-9[00:09:54] FEP paperhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.11581[00:22:38] Lenia: Biology of Artificial Life (Bert Chan)https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.05433[00:23:20] Growing Neural Cellular Automata (Mordvintsev et al.)https://distill.pub/2020/growing-ca/[00:41:35] Digital Red Queen: Core War with LLMs (Kumar et al.)https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03335[00:43:42] MAP-Elites https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.04909[00:44:55] AlphaEvolve https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13131[00:47:03] AutoML-Zero (Real et al.)https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.03384book:[00:07:04] Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned (Stanley and Lehman)https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-15524-1tool:[00:18:12] Conway's Game of Lifehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life[00:25:27] Boids (Craig Reynolds)https://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/[00:27:12] Particle Life (Tom Mohr)https://github.com/tom-mohr/particle-life[00:41:50] Core Warhttps://corewar.co.uk/other:[00:08:49] Computational irreducibility (Stephen Wolfram)https://www.wolframscience.com/nks/p737--computational-irreducibility/[00:10:46] MLST: Why Every AI Model Is an Impostor (Kenneth Stanley, FER documentary)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1q6Hhz0MAg[00:28:30] MLST: Blaise Agüera y Arcas on life emerging from codehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMSEqJ_4EBk---LINKS:Akarsh Kumar: https://akarshkumar.com/ASAL project page and demos: https://pub.sakana.ai/asal/Digital Red Queen project page: https://sakana.ai/drq/RESCRIPT:https://app.rescript.info/public/share/Qfv3T0EVzqOXL_CYYeRr9Blv8HnNm4JsXBh7ByFjJbc
Tsung-Hsien (Shawn) Wen, CTO of PolyAI, tells Tim Scarfe why voice agents are harder than text agents. Voice adds time, and a good conversation depends on adapting to the person on the line, not just on reasoning to the best answer. Shawn describes an audio-native model (Dialog-RSN-1) that first predicts a turn-taking signal, then replies in text with citations, and writes the transcript last so enterprises can audit it.Along the way: training on real, noisy calls with synthetic noise added, and why over-cleaned audio made the new model worse. Latency, and what a voice agent should do while it thinks. Why a voice with a hint of regional accent beats a generic one. Why public benchmarks fall short for voice, why enterprises want to own their agent harness, and whether behaviour belongs in the harness or in the weights.The last stretch is about working with agents: cognitive debt, the shift from producing content to checking it, Wispr Flow, building tools that agents can use, and whether slop is in the eye of the reader.This episode was produced in partnership with PolyAI.https://poly.ai CHAPTERS0:00 Why voice agents are harder than text4:27 What enterprises want, and why PolyAI built its own model9:04 How an audio-native voice model works15:21 Training data, spectrograms and synthetic noise20:36 The cocktail party problem and the future of turn-taking25:21 Latency, adaptive reasoning and keeping callers' trust31:33 Voices, personality and the uncanny valley36:32 How do you benchmark a voice agent?42:00 Harness engineering and owning the intelligence45:09 Well-specified problems and auditable agents49:46 Weight adaptation and cognitive debt56:31 Agents at work: Wispr Flow, voice and tool building1:02:50 The next decade of voice, and what counts as slopREFERENCESThe Bitter Lesson: http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html [9:05]Retrieval-augmented generation: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401 [13:23]Mel scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_scale [17:16]Victor Zue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Zue [17:45]Cocktail party effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocktail_party_effect [20:39]Speaker diarisation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_diarisation [21:16]
Leonardo de Moura created Lean and co-created Z3. ---This episode is sponsored by Parallel.Parallel, where agents find answers: web search, extraction and deep research APIs built for AI agents.Start free with the Parallel MCP server and $5 of credits every month: https://parallel.ai/mlst?utm_source=creator&utm_medium=podcast&utm_content=MLST---Tim Scarfe talks with Leo about how Lean escaped its original audience, why dependent types and Mathlib made it useful to working mathematicians, and what happens when formal verification leaves the lab. De Moura explains the small trusted kernel and independent checkers, and gives his account of the recent Collatz incident, in which a purported proof was accepted by both Lean's official kernel and Nanoda, apparently by exploiting a different bug in each.---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 Cold open: the green checkmark can lie00:00:59 Cathedral or bazaar: who controls Lean's core?00:04:55 Why Lean's core stays small and protected00:08:07 The Slack purge, Brandolini's law and the Lean FRO00:11:12 The Collatz exploit: two kernels, two bugs00:16:44 More kernels, reward hacking and safety by transparency00:21:04 Sponsor: Parallel00:21:59 Kim Morrison, Claude and the zlib proof00:25:25 Can we specify complex systems?00:28:04 Specs change: proofs are cheaper to redo with AI00:31:27 From Lean 1 to Lean 400:34:57 Dependent types in plain terms00:37:25 Lean 4's extensibility and Mathlib's growth00:41:44 Mathlib as infrastructure: Formal Frontiers00:44:15 Creativity, abstraction and nut-sniping00:48:46 Breadcrumbs, not learning: what AI agents lack00:53:03 Competence without comprehension, and verified guardrails00:56:21 Is the human still the author?01:01:44 AlphaProof, LLMs and why certificates still matter01:06:38 What's next for Lean, and its legacy01:11:42 How to start learning Lean---REFERENCES:tool:[00:00:48] Leanhttps://lean-lang.org/[00:01:24] Mathlibhttps://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib4[00:12:09] nanoda_libhttps://github.com/ammkrn/nanoda_lib[00:12:19] CollatzLeanhttps://github.com/xrchz/CollatzLean/blob/a79357462a33d2a6babd4cf6c8d8bcd25425d653/README.md[00:13:06] Lean issue 14576https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/issues/14576[00:13:21] Lean pull request 14577https://github.com/leanprover/lean4/pull/14577[00:13:45] nanoda_lib pull request 22https://github.com/ammkrn/nanoda_lib/pull/22[00:15:33] Lean comparatorhttps://github.com/leanprover/comparator[00:18:02] Lean4Leanhttps://github.com/digama0/lean4lean[00:19:50] ARC-AGI-3https://arcprize.org/arc-agi/3[00:21:59] lean-ziphttps://github.com/kim-em/lean-zip[00:29:45] CompCerthttps://compcert.org/[00:29:45] seL4https://www.sel4.org/[00:30:23] Z3https://github.com/Z3Prover/z3[00:38:10] Veilhttps://github.com/verse-lab/veil[00:38:10] Velvethttps://github.com/verse-lab/velvetorganization:[00:00:52] Lean FROhttps://lean-lang.org/fro/[00:42:39] Mathlib Initiativehttps://mathlib-initiative.org/about/person:[00:05:11] Ilya Sergeyhttps://ilyasergey.net/[00:10:31] Joachim Breitnerhttps://www.joachim-breitner.de/[00:32:58] Adam Chlipalahttps://adam.chlipala.net/[00:38:42] Kevin Buzzardhttps://www.ma.imperial.ac.uk/~buzzard/[01:10:16] Terence Taohttps://terrytao.wordpress.com/book:[00:08:19] The Proof in the Codehttps://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374620059/theproofinthecode/other:[00:10:05] Brandolini's lawhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law[00:45:33] A new result on unit distanceshttps://openai.com/index/model-disproves-discrete-geometry-conjecture/[01:01:08] Fermat's Last Theorem formalisationhttps://imperialcollegelondon.github.io/FLT/paper:[00:34:36] The Lean 4 theorem prover and programming languagehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79876-5_37---RESCRIPT:https://app.rescript.info/share/7d3d4a0059443236a01f6c9acbf4db58https://app.rescript.info/api/public/sessions/b007264c0ce89047/pdf
Weco let an AI coding agent rewrite the harness around another agent for eight days: its code, prompts and tools, while the underlying language model stayed fixed. Tim Scarfe asks Weco co-founder Zhengyao Jiang what the reported gains over two years of human engineering actually demonstrate.The discussion examines AIDE 85's generated code, held-out evaluation and the difficulty of separating useful discoveries from reward hacking. Jiang explains Weco's four levels of recursive self-improvement and compares the experiment with AlphaEvolve and the Darwin Gödel Machine.The limits matter as much as the gains. Jiang explains why the experiment did not establish that the system had become a better improver. The conversation closes with open-ended search, human-designed primitives and Parameter Golf: where does the next useful idea come from when the agent is searching inside a space that people designed?---TIMESTAMPS:00:00:00 Eight days of self-improvement: what counts?00:03:25 AIDE and the puzzle of useful spaghetti code00:08:38 Four levels of recursive self-improvement00:12:02 What AIDE 85 changed and how it was tested00:20:04 AlphaEvolve, Darwin Gödel Machine and the RSI claim00:26:21 Reward hacking and the limits of detection00:33:09 Open-ended search, harness tuning and creativity00:39:43 Parameter Golf and the limits of self-improvement---REFERENCES:organization:[00:00:30] Weco AIhttps://www.weco.ai/other:[00:00:33] AIDE²: The First Evidence of Recursive Self-Improvementhttps://www.weco.ai/blog/first-evidence-of-recursive-self-improvement[00:14:11] Faulty reward functions in the wildhttps://openai.com/index/faulty-reward-functions/[00:29:59] The Hugging Face incident and the road aheadhttps://openai.com/index/hugging-face-incident-and-the-road-ahead/tool:[00:03:29] AIDEhttps://github.com/WecoAI/aideml[00:04:29] MLE-benchhttps://github.com/openai/mle-bench[00:04:33] ALE-Benchhttps://github.com/SakanaAI/ALE-Bench[00:04:52] WeatherBench 2https://github.com/google-research/weatherbench2[00:08:18] ReActhttps://react-lm.github.io/[00:39:43] Parameter Golfhttps://github.com/openai/parameter-golfpaper:[00:20:08] AlphaEvolve: A coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discoveryhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13131v1[00:21:35] Darwin Gödel Machine: Open-Ended Evolution of Self-Improving Agentshttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.22954v3[00:23:45] Hyperagentshttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19461v1[00:27:01] SpecBench: Measuring Reward Hacking in Long-Horizon Coding Agentshttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.21384book:[00:33:14] Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned: The Myth of the Objectivehttps://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-15524-1---LINKS:https://app.rescript.info/share/3a9dc6189cb539c6a05fcc4f75c101b3PDF:https://app.rescript.info/api/public/sessions/9eda60ede2b31c92/pdf
Frank Hutter, co-founder of Prior Labs, talks about TabPFN, a tabular foundation model that makes predictions in a single forward pass, and the research behind it.