6 ms·

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

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?
      - flagrant_taco 3y ago
        The default position should be based on risks and unknowns, I don't think the GP was making any recommendation based on personal feelings. The fact is we don't know how current ML actually does what it does, we don't know what we'll have next month, and we wouldn't know how to recognize an AI or AGI if we developed one. The risks and unknowns are high, the default position should be to not develop the technology unless and until someone proves without reasonable doubt why we can and should do it, and how we'll do it safely.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - bbor 3y ago
    A nice thought but not very helpful. What’s the null hypothesis here?
    - CSMastermind 3y ago
      The null hypothesis is that technological advancement will be a net positive for humanity, as all previous technological advancements have been.
      - SantalBlush 3y ago
        Calling a personal assumption a null hypothesis doesn't make it more objective.
        esafak 3y ago
        As the discussion shows, the choice of null hypotheses is debated. Fortunately, null hypothesis statistical testing is not the only scientific framework for hypothesis testing.
  - naasking 3y ago
    > The default in science is that the side arguing a point has the burden of proving it correct Right, and Yann is arguing the point that AI and LLMs are not or will not be dangerous. Where's his proof? As the parent posters have said, he has none.
    - qualifiedai 3y ago
      Show me LLM that has reached a level of automony and self sufficiency of a cat (Yann's example) or even of a simple beattle. LLMs are tools in amplifying individual human intelligence, 100% of automony and will come from their user (human). Also, even as tools they have fundamental limitations which stem from their autoregressive nature
      - harshreality 3y ago
        Before the era of quantum physics, the idea of a weapon like fission or fusion weapons would've been inconceivable without resorting to magical thinking. Your argument, and Yann's, is that AGI, or what you call AGI, is a kind of quasi-intelligent golem that, despite being generally intelligent, doesn't have human-level intelligence. Your claim that it will never be human-equivalent, much less trans-human/ASI, is built into your worldview. It's not a conclusion. It's an assumption on your part. People like you and Yann can believe that if you want, but you have no evidence, because nobody knows what's required for human-level intelligence. Nobody knows whether some kind of system involving neural nets could develop human-level intelligence or beyond. It could involve different architecture or training methods. There's no assumption by AI doomers that AGI will be achieved by a LLM with more parameters or more or better training data.
        worldsayshi 3y ago
        >despite being generally intelligent, doesn't have human-level intelligence I think this whole quote is riddled with assumptions in this debate. What is human level? Is it really a "level" or is human level just a local variant in a space of possible intelligence varieties that maybe could be sorted along one dimension of levels of maybe multiple? Can it be super intelligent without being autonomous at all? I'm not saying that you're wrong in just pointing out where people ought to have a myriad of different assumptions.
avsteele 3y ago
Please point me to an example of his good arguments. I only see his posts on Twitter but haven't been impressed.
concordDance 3y ago
I've read a fair bit of LeCunn and frankly have been very unimpressed. He is, as far as I can tell, the only big AI name who doesn't think that if we somehow managed to make an actual superintelligent AI it wouldn't be dangerous.
- lucubratory 3y ago
  And his reasoning for it is absurd, a combination of evolutionary psychology (not the most scientifically rigorous field to begin with and not even his field) and the belief that no one would choose to make an unsafe AI system, while simultaneously arguing for open sourcing everything so that anyone on the planet can do so if they want.
- jlpom 3y ago
  His reasoning is that good guy’s AI will counteract bad guy’s ones or a an AI that has developed his own objective against humanity if that happens, which is I think a reasonable argument.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    He effectively is arguing that the "good guys" will develop a superhero AI that will protect us simply because it feels that is the right thing to do. I'm not sure how any logical basis can be used to back that up, or where any meaningful example of similar behavior that didn't ultimately lose to the "bad guys" can be found in human history.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    In the 20th century this same thinking lead to MADD and massive stocks of nuclear weapons that still present an existential threat to humanity. Depending on the scaling potential of intelligence this just adds further risks at this level, not less or balanced risks.

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?
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      The default position should be based on risks and unknowns, I don't think the GP was making any recommendation based on personal feelings. The fact is we don't know how current ML actually does what it does, we don't know what we'll have next month, and we wouldn't know how to recognize an AI or AGI if we developed one. The risks and unknowns are high, the default position should be to not develop the technology unless and until someone proves without reasonable doubt why we can and should do it, and how we'll do it safely.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- bbor 3y ago
  A nice thought but not very helpful. What’s the null hypothesis here?
  - CSMastermind 3y ago
    The null hypothesis is that technological advancement will be a net positive for humanity, as all previous technological advancements have been.
    - SantalBlush 3y ago
      Calling a personal assumption a null hypothesis doesn't make it more objective.
      - esafak 3y ago
        As the discussion shows, the choice of null hypotheses is debated. Fortunately, null hypothesis statistical testing is not the only scientific framework for hypothesis testing.
- naasking 3y ago
  > The default in science is that the side arguing a point has the burden of proving it correct Right, and Yann is arguing the point that AI and LLMs are not or will not be dangerous. Where's his proof? As the parent posters have said, he has none.
  - qualifiedai 3y ago
    Show me LLM that has reached a level of automony and self sufficiency of a cat (Yann's example) or even of a simple beattle. LLMs are tools in amplifying individual human intelligence, 100% of automony and will come from their user (human). Also, even as tools they have fundamental limitations which stem from their autoregressive nature
    - harshreality 3y ago
      Before the era of quantum physics, the idea of a weapon like fission or fusion weapons would've been inconceivable without resorting to magical thinking. Your argument, and Yann's, is that AGI, or what you call AGI, is a kind of quasi-intelligent golem that, despite being generally intelligent, doesn't have human-level intelligence. Your claim that it will never be human-equivalent, much less trans-human/ASI, is built into your worldview. It's not a conclusion. It's an assumption on your part. People like you and Yann can believe that if you want, but you have no evidence, because nobody knows what's required for human-level intelligence. Nobody knows whether some kind of system involving neural nets could develop human-level intelligence or beyond. It could involve different architecture or training methods. There's no assumption by AI doomers that AGI will be achieved by a LLM with more parameters or more or better training data.
      - worldsayshi 3y ago
        >despite being generally intelligent, doesn't have human-level intelligence I think this whole quote is riddled with assumptions in this debate. What is human level? Is it really a "level" or is human level just a local variant in a space of possible intelligence varieties that maybe could be sorted along one dimension of levels of maybe multiple? Can it be super intelligent without being autonomous at all? I'm not saying that you're wrong in just pointing out where people ought to have a myriad of different assumptions.

avsteele 3y ago

Please point me to an example of his good arguments. I only see his posts on Twitter but haven't been impressed.

concordDance 3y ago

I've read a fair bit of LeCunn and frankly have been very unimpressed. He is, as far as I can tell, the only big AI name who doesn't think that if we somehow managed to make an actual superintelligent AI it wouldn't be dangerous.

lucubratory 3y ago
And his reasoning for it is absurd, a combination of evolutionary psychology (not the most scientifically rigorous field to begin with and not even his field) and the belief that no one would choose to make an unsafe AI system, while simultaneously arguing for open sourcing everything so that anyone on the planet can do so if they want.
jlpom 3y ago
His reasoning is that good guy’s AI will counteract bad guy’s ones or a an AI that has developed his own objective against humanity if that happens, which is I think a reasonable argument.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  He effectively is arguing that the "good guys" will develop a superhero AI that will protect us simply because it feels that is the right thing to do. I'm not sure how any logical basis can be used to back that up, or where any meaningful example of similar behavior that didn't ultimately lose to the "bad guys" can be found in human history.
- pixl97 3y ago
  In the 20th century this same thinking lead to MADD and massive stocks of nuclear weapons that still present an existential threat to humanity. Depending on the scaling potential of intelligence this just adds further risks at this level, not less or balanced risks.