5 ms·

Yann has been a refreshing source of reason and common sense with regards to AI safety, regulation and open-source. I wish we had more people like him and less

Yann has been a refreshing source of reason and common sense with regards to AI safety, regulation and open-source. I wish we had more people like him and less AI doomer cultists.

hackinthebochs 3y ago
People like his takes because he gives an authoritative gloss to what they already believe. But his points are usually lacking in argument or rigor. Anyone that essentially expects the public to trust them when it comes to the outcome of AI/AGI should be view with suspicion.
- junofan 3y ago
  I mean I don’t think predicting the future is something that typically involves rigor. The outcome is pretty clear: whatever makes a ton of money. Probably a trusted friend in your pocket that sometimes helps you buy stuff. The most negative predictions are silly because they don’t involve making a ton of money for anybody.
  - makeitdouble 3y ago
    The point about money is important, but we should also keep in mind most outcomes will make a ton of money for someone somewhere. Hell, there's wars killing tens of thousands of people going on right now, and a ton of money is changing hands making a juicy business for whole industries.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    Your theory for predicting the future is “people don’t lose money?”
- qualifiedai 3y ago
  On the contrary, he gives good arguments about why open is safer and closed is more dangerous whereas other side gives, imho, convoluted arguments and asks for them to be proven wrong (as opposed to trying to prove themselves right).
  - hackinthebochs 3y ago
    His arguments in defense of barreling forward with AI are terrible. They have zero chance to convince someone who doesn't share his intuitions/interests. For example: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1718764953534939162 https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1718764953534939162 How easily smart people convince themselves of what they want to be true with zero self-awareness makes me much more fearful of what's to come. >other side gives, imho, convoluted arguments and asks for them to be proven wrong (as opposed to trying to prove themselves right). The question is what should our default stance be until proven otherwise? I submit it is not to continue building the potentially world-ending technology.
    - qualifiedai 3y ago
      The default in science is that the side arguing a point has the burden of proving it correct. Not asking the other side to prove them wrong.
      - hackinthebochs 3y ago
        Burden of proof is a tragically misapplied concept. The question is what position should be the default given some uncertainty? This isn't decided in a vacuum. The default should be decided based on the facts and utility estimates of various outcomes where relevant. In the case where the issue is of purely academic interest, the burden of proof is on those making the claim. When the issue has real world consequences, then utility estimates of various outcomes are the overriding concern. When you see a gun on the table, what do you do? You assume its loaded until proven otherwise. For some reason, those who imagine AI will usher in some tech-utopia not only assume the gun is empty, but that pulling the trigger will bring forth endless prosperity. It's rather insane actually.
        zmgsabst 3y ago
        You’re assuming your conclusion by saying AI is like a gun. That’s not a rational argument for why we should be concerned — you merely asserted you were. Why is catering to your feelings the default position?
- mycologos 3y ago
  At the same time, it seems like some antidote is needed to the breathless, quasi-mystical hype that cryptic OpenAI claims seem designed to stoke. Demanding precise and substantive criticisms of something about which almost no technical details have been provided seems like an unfair bar.
- orochimaaru 3y ago
  This was a view that was initially taken by the government for encryption as well. But everyone can agree open sourcing the algorithms and libraries has been the best move. It is the same with AI/AGI. Anything closed source and having regulatory oversight is useless, decreases innovation, increases bureaucracy and will only serve those who wish to build a “moat” to further their hold on the technology.
  - vkou 3y ago
    > Anything closed source and having regulatory oversight is useless Source isn't even the problem, unless you're a billionaire, you can't afford to train the model. This isn't the wheel, the printing press, the PC, or the public internet, which created opportunities for everyone. This is pay-to-play that is only affordable to the nation-state the mega-corporation, and the latter might let you play around as a digital sharecropper on their platform, until they cut you off, because they can make more money by having first-party ownership of whatever you built.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - bangkoksbest 3y ago
      The model is the instance because the instance is what is being used at inference time. The training simply produces some set of weights. Open source would mean someone could see and run the model code locally/independently to create an instance. For an LLM, this is much less insurmountable of an issue in terms of resources needed.
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        We should probably be calling for an open model or open data approach if that's what we think is best. Calling it open source leaves plenty of gray area in the definition. For example, I run a few instances of open source software though my instances' databases are private.
      - 3y ago
- gexla 3y ago
  But the post links to Twitter (X.) That's the wrong place for argument or rigor. But do you really need that? Seems to me like his post is essentially saying "Pay attention to all this stuff which people have been working on for a long time." He's just casting a vote. The argument and rigor is already there for further reading. That's interesting for me, because I don't know much about the topic. If you already know all this stuff, then maybe it's not interesting.
_yb2s 3y ago
His arguments about safety are all just wishful thinking- he never addresses the substance of “AI doomer” concerns or arguments.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
godelski 3y ago
> I wish we had more people like him and less AI doomer cultists. There are many sources like him, often with even more detail and references. The problem is that these people are not famous and thus do not have as many followers and are less likely to make it into your feeds. Lots of grad students are in this region as they write to help increase their name and visibility due to the need to market one's self. Don't be afraid to look at those who are not from big name schools. Instead look for those that are willing to mention details and nuance. But this may be hard to accurately determine being on the outside, but that's the thing hype people take advantage of. I don't think they're malicious, but if you're the "smartest person in the room" it's easy to think you're the smartest person in many rooms and have a high confidence in bullshit. For example, we see such comments on places like Reddit and HN. I'm not sure if there's a good way to realistically filter out non-experts from experts (I don't think we should require credential checking). But experts are probably usually more boring as is reality to fantasy.
drngdds 3y ago
Yann LeCun is a clown lol. The Chief AI Scientist at _Facebook_ of all companies expects me to just trust him when he says "it'll be safe guys, we'll figure it out, we wouldn't release anything that was harmful :)"
maeil 3y ago
I wish we had less people like him and less AGI boomer cultists. Your verbiage isn't in the spirit of HN.

Yann has been a refreshing source of reason and common sense with regards to AI safety, regulation and open-source. I wish we had more people like him and less AI doomer cultists.

hackinthebochs 3y ago

People like his takes because he gives an authoritative gloss to what they already believe. But his points are usually lacking in argument or rigor. Anyone that essentially expects the public to trust them when it comes to the outcome of AI/AGI should be view with suspicion.

junofan 3y ago
I mean I don’t think predicting the future is something that typically involves rigor. The outcome is pretty clear: whatever makes a ton of money. Probably a trusted friend in your pocket that sometimes helps you buy stuff. The most negative predictions are silly because they don’t involve making a ton of money for anybody.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  The point about money is important, but we should also keep in mind most outcomes will make a ton of money for someone somewhere. Hell, there's wars killing tens of thousands of people going on right now, and a ton of money is changing hands making a juicy business for whole industries.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Your theory for predicting the future is “people don’t lose money?”
qualifiedai 3y ago
On the contrary, he gives good arguments about why open is safer and closed is more dangerous whereas other side gives, imho, convoluted arguments and asks for them to be proven wrong (as opposed to trying to prove themselves right).
- hackinthebochs 3y ago
  His arguments in defense of barreling forward with AI are terrible. They have zero chance to convince someone who doesn't share his intuitions/interests. For example: https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1718764953534939162 https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1718764953534939162 How easily smart people convince themselves of what they want to be true with zero self-awareness makes me much more fearful of what's to come. >other side gives, imho, convoluted arguments and asks for them to be proven wrong (as opposed to trying to prove themselves right). The question is what should our default stance be until proven otherwise? I submit it is not to continue building the potentially world-ending technology.
  - qualifiedai 3y ago
    The default in science is that the side arguing a point has the burden of proving it correct. Not asking the other side to prove them wrong.
    - hackinthebochs 3y ago
      Burden of proof is a tragically misapplied concept. The question is what position should be the default given some uncertainty? This isn't decided in a vacuum. The default should be decided based on the facts and utility estimates of various outcomes where relevant. In the case where the issue is of purely academic interest, the burden of proof is on those making the claim. When the issue has real world consequences, then utility estimates of various outcomes are the overriding concern. When you see a gun on the table, what do you do? You assume its loaded until proven otherwise. For some reason, those who imagine AI will usher in some tech-utopia not only assume the gun is empty, but that pulling the trigger will bring forth endless prosperity. It's rather insane actually.
      - zmgsabst 3y ago
        You’re assuming your conclusion by saying AI is like a gun. That’s not a rational argument for why we should be concerned — you merely asserted you were. Why is catering to your feelings the default position?
mycologos 3y ago
At the same time, it seems like some antidote is needed to the breathless, quasi-mystical hype that cryptic OpenAI claims seem designed to stoke. Demanding precise and substantive criticisms of something about which almost no technical details have been provided seems like an unfair bar.
orochimaaru 3y ago
This was a view that was initially taken by the government for encryption as well. But everyone can agree open sourcing the algorithms and libraries has been the best move. It is the same with AI/AGI. Anything closed source and having regulatory oversight is useless, decreases innovation, increases bureaucracy and will only serve those who wish to build a “moat” to further their hold on the technology.
- vkou 3y ago
  > Anything closed source and having regulatory oversight is useless Source isn't even the problem, unless you're a billionaire, you can't afford to train the model. This isn't the wheel, the printing press, the PC, or the public internet, which created opportunities for everyone. This is pay-to-play that is only affordable to the nation-state the mega-corporation, and the latter might let you play around as a digital sharecropper on their platform, until they cut you off, because they can make more money by having first-party ownership of whatever you built.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bangkoksbest 3y ago
    The model is the instance because the instance is what is being used at inference time. The training simply produces some set of weights. Open source would mean someone could see and run the model code locally/independently to create an instance. For an LLM, this is much less insurmountable of an issue in terms of resources needed.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      We should probably be calling for an open model or open data approach if that's what we think is best. Calling it open source leaves plenty of gray area in the definition. For example, I run a few instances of open source software though my instances' databases are private.
    - 3y ago
gexla 3y ago
But the post links to Twitter (X.) That's the wrong place for argument or rigor. But do you really need that? Seems to me like his post is essentially saying "Pay attention to all this stuff which people have been working on for a long time." He's just casting a vote. The argument and rigor is already there for further reading. That's interesting for me, because I don't know much about the topic. If you already know all this stuff, then maybe it's not interesting.

_yb2s 3y ago

His arguments about safety are all just wishful thinking- he never addresses the substance of “AI doomer” concerns or arguments.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

godelski 3y ago

> I wish we had more people like him and less AI doomer cultists. There are many sources like him, often with even more detail and references. The problem is that these people are not famous and thus do not have as many followers and are less likely to make it into your feeds. Lots of grad students are in this region as they write to help increase their name and visibility due to the need to market one's self. Don't be afraid to look at those who are not from big name schools. Instead look for those that are willing to mention details and nuance. But this may be hard to accurately determine being on the outside, but that's the thing hype people take advantage of. I don't think they're malicious, but if you're the "smartest person in the room" it's easy to think you're the smartest person in many rooms and have a high confidence in bullshit. For example, we see such comments on places like Reddit and HN. I'm not sure if there's a good way to realistically filter out non-experts from experts (I don't think we should require credential checking). But experts are probably usually more boring as is reality to fantasy.

drngdds 3y ago

Yann LeCun is a clown lol. The Chief AI Scientist at _Facebook_ of all companies expects me to just trust him when he says "it'll be safe guys, we'll figure it out, we wouldn't release anything that was harmful :)"

maeil 3y ago

I wish we had less people like him and less AGI boomer cultists. Your verbiage isn't in the spirit of HN.