8 ms·
> The expert believes that “asking for regulations because of fear of superhuman intelligence is like asking for regulation of transatlantic flights at near the
by statuslover9000 3y ago
> The expert believes that “asking for regulations because of fear of superhuman intelligence is like asking for regulation of transatlantic flights at near the speed of sound in 1925.”
This assessment of the timeline is quite telling. If supersonic flight posed an existential threat to humanity, we certainly should have been thinking about how to mitigate it in 1925.
- calf 3y agoI was thinking one reason Yann LeCun would make such a terrible analogy is because he knows something the rest of us don't.
- thfuran 3y agoAnd, what, you think he's working against humanity's interest in service of the secret AI overlords?
- calf 3y agoYou're missing the point and context. Person above me says this analysis is quite telling, then points out the counterfactual historical hypothetical, which makes no sense. Yann thinks supersonic flight is not worthy of precautionary principle ethics in 1925? I'm saying the same thing--Yann's terrible, nonsense analogy is indeed poorly argued, but plausibly would make sense as a Freudian slip inconsistency of some sort. Ergo, "it is quite telling". As to what contents in his mind, or his motivations, I don't care to speculate. The fact that you make insinuations about what I think is pretty aggressive and terrible similarly, this forum ought to have better manners than that when writing replies to complete strangers. Not everyone who has a different opinion is some crypto conspiracy theorist, and you are wrong to jump to such a suggestion.
- ttoinou 3y agoHis funny insinuation pushed you to write a nice long argumented explanation, it worked great
- seanhunter 3y agoThe thing that he knows that (most of) the rest of us don’t is quite a lot about AI.
- throwaway09223 3y agoIf you read what Yann writes you'll pretty quickly see that he's rather ignorant about AI. His opinion is probably worse on average than the typical technical generalist's
- kelipso 3y agoYou'll have to be way more convincing than this if you want anyone to believe that about Yann haha.
- seanhunter 3y agoThat’s hilarious. I have read a few things he has written which suggests he’s definitely better than the average technical generalist. I haven’t read everything obviously but he has written quite a lot https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=WLN3QrAAAAAJ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=WLN3QrAAAAAJ
- danielmarkbruce 3y agoThis is ignorant. He won a Turing award for his work on deep learning. Lots of people reasonably disagree with him about the future of AI/ML, but he's the opposite of ignorant.
- kranke155 3y agoWhat an absurd idea to say this about a leading AI researcher
- yeahOrite 3y ago[flagged]
- oh_sigh 3y agoBut AI doesn't pose an existential threat to humanity, so we're all good.
- HKH2 3y agoI really can't grasp how people think that a system that doesn't have a need to preserve itself will somehow start thinking for itself. AI is quite troublesome for privacy though. How much privacy humans need is a question we'll probably have answered the hard way.
- loki-ai 3y agothat’s precisely the point: the technical geniuses lack creativity to predict how things can go wrong in a thousand of different ways.
- oh_sigh 3y agoSo...who isn't lacking the creativity? In fact, I would say techies are unreasonably gloomy because they grew up obsessing over sci-fi.
- nahSeetho 3y ago[dead]
- orbital-decay 3y agoWhat makes you think they're predicting the apocalypse correctly, then? Another thing the technical geniuses tend to be good at is exploiting the power they suddenly obtain in their own interest, either directly or with regulations and collusion with those who hold actual hard power. Evil AI owners seem to be much closer and far more material than an evil AI, and coincidentally it's something that is almost entirely lacking from the discourse, as public attention is too focused on sci-fi hypotheticals.
- 3y ago
- fulafel 3y ago1925 of course would have been a great time to put limits on fossil fuel use in aviation along with the rest of the fossil fuel applications to manage the biggest current threat to human civilization. (Arrhenius did the science showing global warming in 1896 or so)
- spacebanana7 3y agoGiven the dual use of fossil fuels between military and civilian purposes, I wonder whether any state that deliberately handicapped car/aero/petrochemicals would’ve been able to survive the early twentieth century. Both the USA and Nazi Germany benefited massively from have a civilian industrial base that was complementary to military production.
- oceanplexian 3y agoThere's a book called Freedom's Forge that I'm a fan of, it makes the argument that the Auto Industry (And assembly lines, mechanization in general) were the single most important reason the Allies won WWII. In fact all the big auto manufacturers of the time retooled their assembly lines to build tanks and airplanes. It's conceivable that if we never mass produced cars, the US wouldn't have had the capability to win the war.
- fulafel 3y agoOf course you could also argue that Germany wouldn't have had the early successes in war, (if they had even started it). Or at a third juncture, would have fared worse against USSR.
- CamperBob2 3y agoThat sounds like a great way to lose an upcoming world war to some people who DGAF about pollution, climate, or other people in general.
- echelon 3y agoMiami is still above water. Would you shut down the powerhouse of our economy -- travel, transportation, energy -- for something hypothetical that hasn't even happened and doesn't appear to be close to happening? I'm pro-clean energy, but you can't do without fossil fuels. Not if you want society to keep climbing up and up and up.
- Simon321 3y agoWell it could be argued that it does, what about supersonic nuclear missiles?
- nsonha 3y agobut all the thoughts about it in 1925 would have been way off to how it actually turned out