Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Yann LeCun: AI one-percenters seizing power forever is real doomsday scenario

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 873 posts

Re: Yann LeCun: AI one-percenters seizing power forever is real doomsday scenario

#91

Post by PeterStuer »

ghshephard wrote: post #68
PeterStuer wrote: post #48

People focus on LLM's and diffusion models because they are so omnipresent now. But an AI for stock picking and prediction that would be realy next level and outcompete the current ones cosistently would siphon of so much wealth it would basically own society if the operators were clever enough not to get so gready short term that the system would litterally collapse overnight.

I'm not following that argument - such a system might siphon off the trading wealth, but presumably that's miniscule compared to the equity wealth that is assigned to the owners of the companies and the wealth that they create?

You can create a lott of profit from a stock tanking. How would that create equity wealth?

Re: Yann LeCun: AI one-percenters seizing power forever is real doomsday scenario

#92

Post by logicchains »

PeterStuer wrote: post #61
logicchains wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The global average PPP GDP per capita is 18k USD/year. 18k USD/year is not remotely close to abundance.

If I watch my kids and you watch yours, our contribution to GDP is 0$. If I babysit your kids and you pay me 1.000.000$, and you watch my kids and I pay you 1.000.000$, we just created 2.000.000$ in GDP. Were we not in abundance the day before but now we are? What changed?

>If I babysit your kids and you pay me 1.000.000$, and you watch my kids and I pay you 1.000.000$, we just created 2.000.000$ in GDP.

This isn't the case with purchasing-power adjusted GDP, which is specifically adjusted to account for the actual purchasing power of people's money.

Re: Yann LeCun: AI one-percenters seizing power forever is real doomsday scenario

#93

Post by [deleted] »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #52
lazzlazzlazz wrote: post #35

The way incumbents are attempting to seize power via regulatory capture, using "X-Risk" and fantastical claims of sudden human extinction is maybe one of the most cynical ploys in the history of tech so far. Open source is one of our greatest gifts, and the push to close off AI with farcical licensing and reporting requirements (which will undoubtedly become more strict) is absurd. The laws we have already cover male…

> seize power via regulatory capture Not even a little bit. "Stop" is not regulatory capture. Some large AI companies are attempting to twist "stop" into "be careful, as only we can". The actual way to stop the existential risk is to stop. https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1719777049576128542 > the push to close off AI with farcical licensing and reporting requirements "Stop" is not "licensing and reporting requ…

[deleted]

Re: Yann LeCun: AI one-percenters seizing power forever is real doomsday scenario

#94

Post by Geee »

Joeri wrote: post #55
Geee wrote: post #32

Yeah, it is a true risk. What happens when people start making their voting decisions with AI, asking who to vote? Nothing wrong with that per se, but it gives an ultimate power to the company who developed and hosts the AI, which means the end of democracy. My recommendation for regulation would be to make closed & cloud-hosted AI illegal. Architecture, training data and weights should always be available, and peopl…

Seeing the weights is useless for knowing capabilities, and even knowing training data and architecture you still need to interact with it to figure those out, which you can do with cloud AI just as well. The real risk that I see is the use of open source AI by governments, corporations and criminal groups to influence elections through a deluge of bots. Cloud AI can at least be controlled to some degree because ther…

Eh, government regulating AI which is used by people to help them vote?

I don't see bots as a huge problem, because it's somewhat easy to verify that someone is a real person, and it would be quite obvious if someone is using lots of bots for their cause.

Re: Yann LeCun: AI one-percenters seizing power forever is real doomsday scenario

#95

Post by PeterStuer »

nostromo wrote: post #82
ghshephard wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not following that argument - such a system might siphon off the trading wealth, but presumably that's miniscule compared to the equity wealth that is assigned to the owners of the companies and the wealth that they create?

Yeah, I honestly think this would be a good thing. ML already exists as market makers. It’s a big-ish industry maybe, but not massive. It probably should be as automated as possible which would reduce the risk free profit to be made to next to nothing.

Does non-automated trading still hold a significant percentage of volume? Not an expert but that would seriously surprise me.

Re: Yann LeCun: AI one-percenters seizing power forever is real doomsday scenario

#96

Post by samus »

chrismarlow9 wrote: post #29
nextaccountic wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Training is still very expensive.. and if it becomes cheaper, then a next-gen model with better performance will be expensive again. It may be very hard to train cutting edge models if you only have consumer hardware

Why do you need cutting edge models if you can solve your problems with less?

They are required if there is an arms-race between actors wielding models. For example, to detect increasingly authentic deepfakes.

Re: Yann LeCun: AI one-percenters seizing power forever is real doomsday scenario

#97

Post by logicchains »

matjus wrote: post #86

The most notable thing about AI right now is that it's the new widget. The economy wanted it, the zeitgeist wanted it, and for that purpose no more development is necessary. It's already reshaped McKinsey's advice, Microsoft's operating system and the public's trust in the exceptionalism of art creation. take Auto-Tune: before it blew up, one uncritically accepted that a great sounding vocal performance was simply th…

>I can't recall a time where the general populace was this vulnerable, ill-informed, traumatized and submissive.

I don't know why you think this is the case; the general populace seems less submissive now than ever before. Consider how much opposition there is to Israel's bombing of Gaza among the western populace, even though almost all the elites support it. Or how the uptake rate for the latest covid vaccine boosters is under 10%, even though almost all the experts and elites support it.

Re: Yann LeCun: AI one-percenters seizing power forever is real doomsday scenario

#98

Post by ethanwillis »

Geee wrote: post #46
a_t48 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would make AI usage restricted to those who can afford a beefy PC, no?

Costs will come down, while capability will go up. I'm thinking of a some kind of box in every home, with special inference chips; not really a "PC". In principle, every human should have access to the same level of AI. There could be one at the local library if someone can't afford one, or doesn't want one.

Access to local libraries isn't even a thing that everyone has access to.

Re: Yann LeCun: AI one-percenters seizing power forever is real doomsday scenario

#99

Post by homefree »

logicchains wrote: post #88
brutusborn wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who do you find persuasive and what material should I read/watch to understand their POV? So far I’ve read a bunch of lesswrong posts and listened to some Eliezer talks but still can’t understand the basis of their arguments or when I do, they seem very vague. The only suggestion that makes sense to me is from the FEP crowd. Essentially if someone sets up at AI with an autopoietic mechanism then it would be able to t…

>What am I missing? You're missing that intelligence is like magic, and enough of it will allow AI to break the laws of physics, mathematics and computation, apparently.

This is the type of weak dismissal I’m talking about.

Re: Yann LeCun: AI one-percenters seizing power forever is real doomsday scenario

#100

Post by PeterStuer »

logicchains wrote: post #92
PeterStuer wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I watch my kids and you watch yours, our contribution to GDP is 0$. If I babysit your kids and you pay me 1.000.000$, and you watch my kids and I pay you 1.000.000$, we just created 2.000.000$ in GDP. Were we not in abundance the day before but now we are? What changed?

>If I babysit your kids and you pay me 1.000.000$, and you watch my kids and I pay you 1.000.000$, we just created 2.000.000$ in GDP. This isn't the case with purchasing-power adjusted GDP, which is specifically adjusted to account for the actual purchasing power of people's money.

Would that still not in the above toy example lead to 0$ vs 2.000.000$/(some factor)?
Post reply on HN