141–150 of 208 posts
Yann has been a refreshing source of reason and common sense with regards to AI safety, regulation and open-source. I wish we had more people like him and less AI doomer cultists.
Your verbiage isn't in the spirit of HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The crypto-bros-turned-AGI-experts on twitter are spouting the most uninformed, misguided garbage about this whole thing, it's quite amazing to watch. After the LK-99 debacle where Twitter "confirmed" its superconductivity and breathless sheisters heralded the dawn of a new age, my new policy is "inverse Twitter": if Twitter thinks something is a big deal, then it's more than than 50% likely that it's unsubstantiat…
Why not just assess each question and each position on its merits, as best you can? No clue why people try to come up with these obviously silly heuristics.
LeCun is one of the rare voices of reason in the AI community, especially among the celebrities. He’s been consistently voicing realistic statements with regards to AGI (he doesn’t believe it’s a thing), AI safety and doomerism, limitations of LLMs, etc.
Lost respect for his opinions massively after seeing how he lied about the topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is moot anyway. If someone can build it someone will. Laws and impending Doom or not. It's probably going to be better if it's us than Russia or China.
That's a reductive argument, and won't work with me. What we have is tantamount to an arms race, and trying to suppress another country's development of tech that could be used against them is a thing. We have already restricted access to our microchips to China specifically and Russia through broad sanctions. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/17/business/economy/ai-chips... Russia isn't poised for the current crop of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doomers thought GPT-2 was too dangerous to release. I guess one can be Dalio successful by calling doom at every instant like Dalio.
Yes, the Anti-doomers will be right many times, and wrong at most once.
No reason to believe this, it hasn't been true for any other dangerous technologies like biological weapons or nuclear power.
I dunno all this talk about OpenAI lately really feels more and more like hype to me. What they've accomplished so far is really impressive. But until I see AGI for real I won't hold my breath. Just feels to me like some expert/wizard level PR is going on right now.
Nobody respectable has said that AGI will be achieved in the next 5 or even 500 years.
To the average person chatGPT is literally magic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
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.
LeCun is one of the rare voices of reason in the AI community, especially among the celebrities. He’s been consistently voicing realistic statements with regards to AGI (he doesn’t believe it’s a thing), AI safety and doomerism, limitations of LLMs, etc.
His research at meta is in analytical methods of AI so I'm not surprised. LLMs were seen as anathema to him as he could not comprehend the capabilities that would come from simply scaling up a suitable architecture with compute and data.
It's quite remarkable how confidently incorrect he was proven to be. Now he's going for round two on his takes with AI safety. Clearly he didn't learn his lesson.