5 ms·

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 e

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.
        4y ago

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.
        4y ago