Earlier quoted context omitted.
it’s hard to disagree with him with any empirical basis when all of his statements seem empirically sound and all of his opponent’s AI Doomer statements seem like evidenceless FUD I couldn’t help noticing that all the AI Doomer folks are pure materialists who think that consciousness and will can be completely encoded in cause-and-effect atomic relationships. The real problem is that that belief is BS until proven tr…
To me, it seems like LeCun is missing the point of the (many and diverse) doom arguments. The is no need for consciousness, there is only a need for a bug. It was purely luck that Nikita Khrushchev was in New York when Thule Site J mistook the moon for a soviet attack force. There is no need for AI to seize power, humans will promote any given AI beyond the competency of that AI just as they already do with fellow hu…
Personally, I view his takes on AI as unserious — in the sense that I have a hard time believing he really engages in a serious manner. The flaws of motivated reasoning and “early-stopping” are painfully obvious.