6 ms·

> Complete with prophecies of imminent fire and brimstone caused by an omnipotent entity that doesn't actually exist. That seems like an absurd comparison give

> Complete with prophecies of imminent fire and brimstone caused by an omnipotent entity that doesn't actually exist. That seems like an absurd comparison given people like LeCun are actively and intentionally working towards creating this super-human entity. (Some) scientists were rightfully worried when creating a nuclear bomb as well. The fact that we managed to survive 70 years with its existence does not automatically mean it has to work out with every such invention. Nukes have the fortunate properties that they are very difficult/expensive to produce even for countries, and then you need very difficult to design and expensive systems to deliver them. It's rather doubtful that AIs will have similar constraints.

version_five 4y ago
We really need some perspective here. One one side is a force capable of unleashing unfathomable amounts of energy, with all kinds of additional negative side effects, that has both been extensively demonstrated and has been used for mass destruction. On the other is a chatbot, that could what, "spew misinformation", take our jobs, someday through a mechanism not known and not related to how it works become sentient and hurt us? Seriously, the comparison is as absurd as the fear generally. There are way scarier things going on, it's sad we can't give them 1% of the attention we give things we made up completely.
- The_Colonel 4y ago
  > On the other is a chatbot, that could what, "spew misinformation", take our jobs, someday through a mechanism not known and not related to how it works become sentient and hurt us? I agree that LLMs are not extinction-level dangerous and somewhat share the skepticism that they should lead to AGI. (Although they are pretty capable given their lack of true intelligence and I think people will find ways to plug them into dangerous applications.) But when LeCun defends AI, he defends "real", intelligent AGI (because he doesn't consider LLMs to be AGIs).
  - antonvs 4y ago
    As I've written in another comment, LeCun is not defending the boogeyman that the LessWrong cult has invented, which is a pure creature of fantasy.
- olalonde 4y ago
  Talking about perspective, do you maintain your prediction[0] that no meaningful business cases will emerge from generative AI? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34197033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34197033
  - version_five 4y ago
    Yes - I'm happy you found that. I don't think it's really related to this thread, but I maintain we're firmly in the "demo" phase, and it's going to fizzle out when the rubber hits the road and companies actually try and find a way to justify their investments. Not that I'd rule out there being some crappy customer service chatbots being fielded. Goalposts (including mine surely) will get moved around to claim successes / no successes, but the balance is going to be well towards indifference to the tech as opposed to any real changes resulting from it.
    - olalonde 4y ago
      Apologies for the tangent, it wasn't related to this thread. I've been in the habit of bookmarking predictions on HN to revisit them later, and your username caught my eye. I'm a bit surprised you maintain it, but the final verdict remains to be seen.
      - version_five 4y ago
        What have you seen since the new year that makes you surprised I'd change an opinion I had then?
        olalonde 4y ago
        OpenAI's GPT4. Bing's AI chat. Google's bard. Midjourney v5. GitHub copilot X. etc.
        version_five 4y ago
        I was deeply involved in the last AI hype cycle. I'd want to see lasting applications giving clear benefits before I change my opinion. More foundation models don't change that, nor do the startup launches based around llms I've seen so far. It all has the same 2016 "deep learning" vibe, lots of apparent potential but no pathway to actual use cases.
userforcomment 4y ago
I think nuke analogy is very tempting since US banned A100 export to China. One could assume that AI race of 21st century ~ nuke race in 20th. Note that Nvidia circumvented ban, so race is on..
antonvs 4y ago
> That seems like an absurd comparison given people like LeCun are actively and intentionally working towards creating this super-human entity. There's a disconnect in that statement. The imagined superintelligence that people like the LessWrong cult speculate and worry about is not the same thing as the AI that LeCun is working towards. The cultists simply speculate, against all evidence, that they somehow could end up being the same thing. It would be much better if the AI risk conversation focused on the real risks, which are human abuse of AI, which will have effects like increasing inequality and in general amping up the dystopias we're already doing a great job of building without help from AI. The "conscious superintelligent AI" is a scifi LARPing game that some people are getting paid to play, which some credible people seem inclined to confuse with reality. > That seems like an absurd comparison It's on point. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz proposed this definition of religion: "Religion is a system of symbols which establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic." It's that "aura of factuality" that makes superintelligent AI "seem uniquely realistic" to the believers of this nascent religion, a.k.a. cult. But when you step back and actually look at the foundational tenets in a vaguely rational light, they evaporate.
- blibble 4y ago
  > The cultists simply speculate, against all evidence, that they somehow could end up being the same thing. something as stupid as bitcoin consumed a vast amount of resources while producing nothing useful to humanity, simply because of economic incentives it's not difficult to imagine something slightly smarter than bitcoin
  - antonvs 4y ago
    > it's not difficult to imagine something slightly smarter than bitcoin I'm not saying there aren't risks from AI, or that they shouldn't be considered. But risks like the ones you're alluding to are not going to be affected by a 6-month moratorium. The problem is that the people yelling loudest about risks are not talking about plausible problems like the one you mention, they're worrying that an AI will decide to take over the world and reuse the atoms that make up humans for its own purposes. The first reply to LeCun's tweet is a leader of one of those cults. If people make the mistake of listening to them, we're more likely to end up with problems like the ones you're describing, because we'll be paying attention to the wrong, imagined problems.
pid-1 4y ago
The irony in this statement is that LeCun is a huge LLM sceptic.

version_five 4y ago

We really need some perspective here. One one side is a force capable of unleashing unfathomable amounts of energy, with all kinds of additional negative side effects, that has both been extensively demonstrated and has been used for mass destruction. On the other is a chatbot, that could what, "spew misinformation", take our jobs, someday through a mechanism not known and not related to how it works become sentient and hurt us? Seriously, the comparison is as absurd as the fear generally. There are way scarier things going on, it's sad we can't give them 1% of the attention we give things we made up completely.

The_Colonel 4y ago
> On the other is a chatbot, that could what, "spew misinformation", take our jobs, someday through a mechanism not known and not related to how it works become sentient and hurt us? I agree that LLMs are not extinction-level dangerous and somewhat share the skepticism that they should lead to AGI. (Although they are pretty capable given their lack of true intelligence and I think people will find ways to plug them into dangerous applications.) But when LeCun defends AI, he defends "real", intelligent AGI (because he doesn't consider LLMs to be AGIs).
- antonvs 4y ago
  As I've written in another comment, LeCun is not defending the boogeyman that the LessWrong cult has invented, which is a pure creature of fantasy.
olalonde 4y ago
Talking about perspective, do you maintain your prediction[0] that no meaningful business cases will emerge from generative AI? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34197033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34197033
- version_five 4y ago
  Yes - I'm happy you found that. I don't think it's really related to this thread, but I maintain we're firmly in the "demo" phase, and it's going to fizzle out when the rubber hits the road and companies actually try and find a way to justify their investments. Not that I'd rule out there being some crappy customer service chatbots being fielded. Goalposts (including mine surely) will get moved around to claim successes / no successes, but the balance is going to be well towards indifference to the tech as opposed to any real changes resulting from it.
  - olalonde 4y ago
    Apologies for the tangent, it wasn't related to this thread. I've been in the habit of bookmarking predictions on HN to revisit them later, and your username caught my eye. I'm a bit surprised you maintain it, but the final verdict remains to be seen.
    - version_five 4y ago
      What have you seen since the new year that makes you surprised I'd change an opinion I had then?
      - olalonde 4y ago
        OpenAI's GPT4. Bing's AI chat. Google's bard. Midjourney v5. GitHub copilot X. etc.
        version_five 4y ago
        I was deeply involved in the last AI hype cycle. I'd want to see lasting applications giving clear benefits before I change my opinion. More foundation models don't change that, nor do the startup launches based around llms I've seen so far. It all has the same 2016 "deep learning" vibe, lots of apparent potential but no pathway to actual use cases.

userforcomment 4y ago

I think nuke analogy is very tempting since US banned A100 export to China. One could assume that AI race of 21st century ~ nuke race in 20th. Note that Nvidia circumvented ban, so race is on..

antonvs 4y ago

> That seems like an absurd comparison given people like LeCun are actively and intentionally working towards creating this super-human entity. There's a disconnect in that statement. The imagined superintelligence that people like the LessWrong cult speculate and worry about is not the same thing as the AI that LeCun is working towards. The cultists simply speculate, against all evidence, that they somehow could end up being the same thing. It would be much better if the AI risk conversation focused on the real risks, which are human abuse of AI, which will have effects like increasing inequality and in general amping up the dystopias we're already doing a great job of building without help from AI. The "conscious superintelligent AI" is a scifi LARPing game that some people are getting paid to play, which some credible people seem inclined to confuse with reality. > That seems like an absurd comparison It's on point. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz proposed this definition of religion: "Religion is a system of symbols which establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic." It's that "aura of factuality" that makes superintelligent AI "seem uniquely realistic" to the believers of this nascent religion, a.k.a. cult. But when you step back and actually look at the foundational tenets in a vaguely rational light, they evaporate.

blibble 4y ago
> The cultists simply speculate, against all evidence, that they somehow could end up being the same thing. something as stupid as bitcoin consumed a vast amount of resources while producing nothing useful to humanity, simply because of economic incentives it's not difficult to imagine something slightly smarter than bitcoin
- antonvs 4y ago
  > it's not difficult to imagine something slightly smarter than bitcoin I'm not saying there aren't risks from AI, or that they shouldn't be considered. But risks like the ones you're alluding to are not going to be affected by a 6-month moratorium. The problem is that the people yelling loudest about risks are not talking about plausible problems like the one you mention, they're worrying that an AI will decide to take over the world and reuse the atoms that make up humans for its own purposes. The first reply to LeCun's tweet is a leader of one of those cults. If people make the mistake of listening to them, we're more likely to end up with problems like the ones you're describing, because we'll be paying attention to the wrong, imagined problems.

pid-1 4y ago

The irony in this statement is that LeCun is a huge LLM sceptic.