Thread

1. jimmyjazz14 · 1790632038 · focus · HN ↗

   > We must move past vague discussions of “AI” and instead isolate the specific types of systems that are creating problems.

   This is absolutely correct and its surprising how rarely you see commenters in the media push to go into the specifics on this. AI is just matrix math and its what you connect that math to that matters, we should talk a little more about what we are willing to connect AI to and little less about how scary or capable the models appear.

   1. yodsanklai · 1790656534 · focus · HN ↗

      A point that Yann LeCun has been making for a while is that it's meaningless to regulate AI, but we want to regulate applications. For instance, you don't want autonomous vehicles to hit people, whether they use AI or not. In practice, most applications of AI are already regulated.

      1. thaumasiotes · 1790662809 · focus · HN ↗

         > For instance, you don't want autonomous vehicles to hit people, whether they use AI or not.

         What would it mean for a vehicle to be "autonomous", but to "not use AI"?

         1. ehe78qhe · 1790662903 · focus · HN ↗

            Trains are often highly automated without AI, for example. Aircraft are often automated for most of their flight without AI.

            1. thaumasiotes · 1790663072 · focus · HN ↗

               > Aircraft are often automated for most of their flight without AI.

               What do you mean? I can just as easily say that Claude Code operates "without AI". It would make about as much sense.

               1. amelius · 1790671472 · focus · HN ↗

                  You could also say that a human is just a bunch of atoms.

                  Thankfully, courts will look at it differently.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.