5 ms·

The "experts" are experts in ML: stats and linear algebra and whatnot. Their hot takes about it coming alive or through some other means destroying us are just

The "experts" are experts in ML: stats and linear algebra and whatnot. Their hot takes about it coming alive or through some other means destroying us are just as irrelevant as any other lay person's. From what I can see, a lot of this is about delusions of self importance on the researchers' part. It's not a coincidence, though a bit ironic, that LeCun, who comes across as the most arrogant and contrarian is the least caught up in the "oh what have we done" faux hype and the most realistic about what the technology is.

visarga 3y ago
I think you should take into consideration the fact that AI researchers spend much more time analysing errors and studying failure modes, hypothesising about causes, because that is their f job. They might come out as pessimists because of it, but that's only because of so many times they got confirmation before. Laypeople spend a few hours playing with the models and think they already understood their limitations. At the present moment there is no AI model that can successfully execute critical tasks completely autonomously. That is a limitation that is confirmed over all the fields, modalities and applications. Many articles in the press simply ignore it, and extrapolate absurd timelines over the near future. The problem is that solving that last 1% gets exponentially harder.
gmerc 3y ago
Any argument that reduces itself to the credibility of people when the technology is freely available for testing and application is flawed. You can uze the capabilities today, no need to listen to experts.
jhbadger 3y ago
But it is interesting that (some) AI researchers have come to the conclusion that it can be world-ending. Yes, as you say, researchers do have a tendency to over exaggerate their field's importance, but I'm a biologist and it seems we spend a lot of our time with media reassuring people that despite what bad 1950s SF movies said, genetic research isn't going to create horrible monsters that will destroy the world.
- version_five 3y ago
  That's an interesting point. I wonder if that would still be true if genetic research was "democratized" so that the barrier to entry was as low as writing a computer program? There's always some self interest involved. I'd guess in the current state of biology, researchers don't want additional limitations placed on them but are secure in their monopoly on the research. In the current state of ML, incumbents want limitations placed on others so they can have a monopoly. Add to that the desire to feel important, and you get the direction of the rhetoric.

visarga 3y ago

I think you should take into consideration the fact that AI researchers spend much more time analysing errors and studying failure modes, hypothesising about causes, because that is their f job. They might come out as pessimists because of it, but that's only because of so many times they got confirmation before. Laypeople spend a few hours playing with the models and think they already understood their limitations. At the present moment there is no AI model that can successfully execute critical tasks completely autonomously. That is a limitation that is confirmed over all the fields, modalities and applications. Many articles in the press simply ignore it, and extrapolate absurd timelines over the near future. The problem is that solving that last 1% gets exponentially harder.

gmerc 3y ago

Any argument that reduces itself to the credibility of people when the technology is freely available for testing and application is flawed. You can uze the capabilities today, no need to listen to experts.

jhbadger 3y ago

But it is interesting that (some) AI researchers have come to the conclusion that it can be world-ending. Yes, as you say, researchers do have a tendency to over exaggerate their field's importance, but I'm a biologist and it seems we spend a lot of our time with media reassuring people that despite what bad 1950s SF movies said, genetic research isn't going to create horrible monsters that will destroy the world.

version_five 3y ago
That's an interesting point. I wonder if that would still be true if genetic research was "democratized" so that the barrier to entry was as low as writing a computer program? There's always some self interest involved. I'd guess in the current state of biology, researchers don't want additional limitations placed on them but are secure in their monopoly on the research. In the current state of ML, incumbents want limitations placed on others so they can have a monopoly. Add to that the desire to feel important, and you get the direction of the rhetoric.