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

541–550 of 873 posts

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

#541

Post by m3kw9 »

veidr wrote: post #409

"AI Godfather" is... pretty fucking ludicrous. Prominent figure, notable researcher? Sure. But it's like calling Neil deGrasse Tyson (who I enjoy a lot; Astrophysics for People In A Hurry was great) the "Godfather of Physics". Both "there's not one" and "anyway, if there were, he wouldn't be it" apply.

Who gives a f about godfather, just because he’s done some good things to advance AI back 20 years ago doesn’t mean he can reliably predict the essentially unpredictable. His basic train of thought is -> AI will be smarter than humans(smart is such an ambiguous term) -> AI will then want to dominate us(this comes from movies with Hal9000 and Terminator and why AI wants to dominate us he can’t elaborate) -> so it’s feels dangerous. He’s at best a useful tool for companies like OpenAI to convince govt of more regulations which mostly help incumbents. The regulations slow down innovations.

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

#542

Post by hollerith »

m_a_g wrote: post #475
hollerith wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AGI does not need to control the Pentagon. It might for example invent novel technologies that you and I cannot even imagine because we are much less capable at inventing new technologies than the AGI will be. If members of an alien civilization much more advanced than our own suddenly appeared in orbit around Earth, would that not be dangerous?

That I understand, but my thinking automatically goes to control and restrictions. A superintelligent AGI that's as restricted as chatgpt in terms of what it can actually control seems... not so existentially dangerous? In that scenario, that actual problem would rise by not-so-smart humans listening to that AGI blindly, no?

I'm confused by your "as restricted as chatgpt". Hasn't chatgpt been given unrestricted access to the web? Surely if chatgpt were sufficiently capable, it would be able to use that access to hack web sites and thereby gain control over money. Then it can use the web to buy things with that money just like you and I can.

It is a lot harder to prevent the sysadmins who have temporary control over you from noticing that you just hacked some web sites and stole some money, but a sufficiently capable AI would know about the sysadmins and would take pains to hide these activities from them.

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

#543

Post by boringg »

amalcon wrote: post #375
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…

This is more or less exactly where I land on this. The extinction risk argument is somewhat plausible in the long term[0], but it doesn't seem that we are especially close to developing that class of problem. Meanwhile, there are very real and immediate risks to this type of technology -- in various forms of giving some humans more power over other humans. The attacks proposed by the extinction risk people actively m…

You mean democratize the technology within specific confines? I don't see humans proliferating weapons technology amongst other nations as that poses a greater risk that conflicts will become more violent.

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

#544

Post by NumberWangMan »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #474
patcon wrote: post #384

I need to resist all this regulatory resistance here, spoken amongst tech people. No, Yann. I am FULLY in support of drastic measures to mitigate and control AI research for the time being. I have no vested stake in any of the companies. I lived for a year in a building that hosted several AI events per week. I'm not ignorant This is the only territory where humanity is mounting a conversation about a REAL response t…

I fully recognize the danger AI presents, and believe that it will mostly likely end up being terrible for humanity. But thanks to my own internal analysis ability and the anonymity of the internet, I am also willing to speak candidly. And I think I speak for many people in the tech community, whether they realize it or not. So here we go: My objective judgement of the situation is heavily adulterated by my incredibl…

We need more people to say this out loud, so thank you…

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

#545

Post by m3kw9 »

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.

A LLM that can get insider info would have an edge. Lmao.

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

#546

Post by m3kw9 »

homefree wrote: post #70

I think Yann is probably wrong. He refuses to engage earnestly with the “doomer” arguments. The same type of motivated reasoning could also be attributed to himself and Meta’s financial goals - it’s not a persuasive framing. The attempts I’ve seen from him to discuss the issue that aren’t just name calling are things like saying he knows smart people and they aren’t president - or even that his cat is pretty smart an…

Yet nobody has a clear practical and reasonable scenario where an AI will cause human extinction. Pls don’t say AI will control the launch codes and start firing randomly.

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

#547

Post by jefftk »

jebarker wrote: post #539
jefftk wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people think continued existence of humanity is good, which includes environmentalists. But there are some people who either think (a) avoiding suffering is overwhelmingly important, to the extent that a universe without life is ideal or (b) the world would be better off without humans because of the vast destruction we cause. I'm not claiming this is a common view, but it doesn't have to be a common view to res…

This doesn't really answer my question. These are arguments for why threat actors might hold the belief that "humanity is cancer", but it doesn't actually provide evidence that this is a credible threat in the real world.

The two people I cited at the end are examples of philosophers who think a lifeless world is preferable to the status quo and to futures we are likely to get. These aren't arguments for why someone might hold the belief, but evidence that some people do seriously hold the belief.

(Another example here would be https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo)

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

#548

Post by jacquesm »

tppiotrowski wrote: post #520
wetmore wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: the Unabomber

I don't know enough about the unabomber but from what I heard he wasn't trying doomsday stuff. Seemed like more targeted assassinations at certain individuals. Feel free to enlighten me though...

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Kaczynski-said-to-pick-h...

And then there was the idiot that tried to draw a smiley face with bombs on the map of the USA:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91668&page=1

Because hey, why not...

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

#549

Post by pdonis »

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…

But the AI leaders who have been calling for the US government to act are not asking for AI research to stop. Nor are they asking for the kind of international policing that Yudkowsky describes. They are asking for regulations much like the ones the Biden administration just published--which are indeed regulatory capture since all they do is build a moat around current AI companies to protect their profits. They do not stop AI research or make it any less dangerous.

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

#550

Post by 2devnull »

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…

The laws are coming no matter what, not because of lobbying or whatever, the laws/policy response is coming because politicians want to get in on the ai too. The regulations we will do things like mandate ai be used for equity purposes in the real estate market. I think that’s in Biden’s plan. I mean, I’m sure these tech ceo 1% want regulatory capture, and they’ll get it as a quid pro quo for allowing ai to be used for largely partisan goals. But we shouldn’t fear open source ai, or regulations against it, we should fear the ai being weapon used by the political parties. It to some extent already is.
Post reply on HN