Checked the AI page, and it's very frustrating to see this Yann LeCun quote: > Humans will always have the ability to pull the plug on AI. Yann LeCun, one of t

Checked the AI page, and it's very frustrating to see this Yann LeCun quote: > Humans will always have the ability to pull the plug on AI. Yann LeCun, one of the 'godfathers of AI', explained that AI doesn't pose a threat to "taking over the world" because "it's still going to run on a data centre somewhere with an off switch [...] And if you realize it's not safe, you just don't built it". This is just hand waving and demonstrates a basic lack of imagination. It's like arguing a hundred years ago that the humanity will never become dependent on electricity and fossil fuels, because we still have horses. If we see a problem, we just go back to horses. How simple! If AI controls most everything in the world (since it's better at it while being cheaper), the AI itself will run the data centers, will control the data center building security, will control the transportation mechanisms to get to the data centers. Even if the data center has a physical off switch, you won't be able to get there to press it. And then you have thousands of other data centers ... ... But back to the original topic. Originally I was skeptical, but looking at the page more I like the format, even if I don't like some specific quotes / points. I think it's a good way to present two opposing opinions on a specific question, basically each side can make the best argument possible. It will never be perfect, e.g. choosing specific questions is also a difficult problem (agenda setting).