5 ms·

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.

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.