Thread

LeCun has "zero concerns" about AI wiping out humanity, recent "rogue" incidents

398 points · 744 comments · Anon84

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

OgsyedIE · 1791051070 · focus · HN ↗
Ignoring the cognitive stuff which might never be surpassed or maybe will, humans retain many efficiency and durability advancements to limbs and digits that biological evolution has taken millions of years to achieve, achievements that are competitive with the most expensive kinds of robotics in some niches.
In the hypothetical of an entirely malicious and selfish takeover, they'll still keep some humans around to maintain a breeding population of humans for use as raw materials in making cybernetically augmented technical laborers for various kinds of tasks that are uneconomical to automate in other ways, many of which may involve confined spaces.
And this "Combine" scenario, if you get the reference, is only if they take over. Who knows if they will?
1. 0xDEAFBEAD · 1791072260 · focus · HN ↗
  So you're saying the AI will enslave us and use us as domestic work animals until they have the machinery to make us obsolete, sort of like how we used horses?
  Is this supposed to be a reassuring scenario?
  1. OgsyedIE · 1791090012 · focus · HN ↗
    I've written on AI in Hacker News comments previously:
    <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46656470">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46656470
    The link should clear up the question of whether or not I'm making a deadpan joke.
2. stratos123 · 1791107937 · focus · HN ↗
  Ignoring you ignoring the much more important congitive stuff - human bodies are not designed, they are the product of evolution. That means there's like a billion ways in which they are obviously suboptimal and far worse than what an engineer would do, but evolution can't fix it because it only works via small random changes with no planning. The only reason why modern robotics are worse than biology is that we have a much worse substrate to work with, having to make stuff out of metal and plastic with giant tolerances instead of growing engineered organisms.
dude250711 · 1791051217 · focus · HN ↗
I am starting to think this LeCun dude knows what he is talking about.
Maybe there is something to those world models.
As good as their products are, I suspect some of the internal conversations at Anthropic would be very entertaining to listen to.
1. throw310822 · 1791056756 · focus · HN ↗
  Well, I have zero concerns we'll be killed by LeCun's world models.
WheelsAtLarge · 1791060011 · focus · HN ↗
He's right. I'm on the side of Bill Gates. Gates started a whole industry on his insights of the future. He has proven his abilities. AI is and will be a great disruptor. We are losing sight of that and are instead focusing on trying to stop it. Something that won't happen. We are on a path that won't be stopped. As individuals we need to try to prepare for the changes that are coming and stop focusing on human extinction in ten years. New technology and the changes it brings are scary but we have dealt with it for generations. Let's continue.
1. mellab2 · 1791062581 · focus · HN ↗
  You say you agree with Bill Gates but your view is completely at odds with his, he is extremely concerned about existential risks … and your view is “stop focusing on it” ?
  1. georgemcbay · 1791066523 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, for context:
    <a href="https://www.gatesnotes.com/work/make-ai-work-for-everyone/reader/a-turbulent-ai-era-and-critical-choices-to-make" rel="nofollow">https://www.gatesnotes.com/work/make-ai-work-for-everyone/re...
    Gates' premise is basically that the upside of AI could be fantastic but the downside could be disastrous, if we don't have competent and proactive government intervention.
    As an American, the idea that there will be competent government intervention into virtually anything going forward just seems laughable at this point. Our government is a never ending clown show.
    toss1 · 1791069318 · focus · HN ↗
    Indeed, "competent and proactive government intervention" on the subject of AI would be highly unlikely in a competent US govt, and under this regime is far beyond beyond laughable
    The only regulation that would come would be regulatory capture by the AI companies with the goal of creating an environment win which no new competitors could arise. That is half of what this "take all jobs" and "threat of extinction" is about; the other half is perverse marketing to give the impression this stuff is so powerful you MUST invest.
    AI can be very useful, but it is very refreshing to hear LeCun completely dismiss those threats.
  2. WheelsAtLarge · 1791068939 · focus · HN ↗
    No, my view is to get ready for the changes it will bring, but don't focus on trying to stop it. That's something that will not happen. All new technologies bring good and bad. We need to focus on mitigating the bad. Thinking that we can stop it and thinking that will be enough is not the answer. Gates is warning of the disruption it will bring, but he's not advocating stopping it. We can't. Even if all governments agreed on stopping it publicly, some governments would continue to develop it covertly. It's how the world works. There's no point in fooling ourselves.If only it was that easy.
  3. jswelker · 1791071921 · focus · HN ↗
    Where does Gates talk about existential risk? All I read and heard was about increasing inequality, harming education and child development, creating economic and political discord, empowering evil people. No terminators in sight.
    0xDEAFBEAD · 1791072527 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    jswelker · 1791072908 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes that is one dumb quote, but I listened to the whole podcast, and it is nothing like that. And in some sense it is true because nuclear weapons have been successfully contained to rational acting governments, whereas AI cannot possibly. Nukes are extremely high blast radius (pun intended) but low diffusion. AI is the opposite.
    The worst part of the interview was a long cringe inducing tangent about Jeff Epstein. Everything else was pretty grounded.
    stratos123 · 1791108690 · focus · HN ↗
    > Yes that is one dumb quote, but I listened to the whole podcast, and it is nothing like that.
    Really? Here's a longer Bill Gates quote (from <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/29/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-bill-gates.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/29/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas... ):
    Ezra Klein: "So why is anything needed beyond — and is anything needed beyond? — the simply natural incentives under capitalism and normal corporate reputational management?"
    Bill Gates: "Well, I almost can’t believe you’re asking that. This is the most dangerous thing that humans have ever gone near. [...] You can take an open-source model that can create bioweapons and disable any monitoring of any kind, and this exists today. So no, there is no filtering of any kind. And so say you kill 100 million people — you want to use a lawsuit? I almost can’t keep a straight face."
    jswelker · 1791131763 · focus · HN ↗
    Still not existential risk. A bit hyperbolic I admit.
jackmott42 · 1791065846 · focus · HN ↗
I also have near zero concerns about that, but I worry that we will wipe ourselves out by social and economic chaos caused by AI.
So I'd just ask everyone, don't get too greedy. Its better to be powerful in a world where people can live good lives than lord over a barren wasteland.
1. pixl97 · 1791067578 · focus · HN ↗
  >So I'd just ask everyone, don't get too greedy.
  Oh no. I have some bad news for you.
  We're creating unlimited power before solving unlimited greed.
2. aeonfox · 1791070231 · focus · HN ↗
  "Everyone will not just"^
  ^ <a href="https://squareallworthy.tumblr.com/post/163790039847/everyone-will-not-just" rel="nofollow">https://squareallworthy.tumblr.com/post/163790039847/everyon...
3. tarkin2 · 1791070317 · focus · HN ↗
  > I also have near zero concerns about that, but I worry that we will wipe ourselves out by social and economic chaos caused by AI.
  Since people exercise their skills and brains less, deferring to AI, AI will only reduce our IQ.
  Since people will spend more time talking to their AI bot than fostering social skills, AI will only reduce our social intelligence.
  A dumber, less social world, is far less likely to be a successful world, even if the tools available are unprecedented.
  1. KerrAvon · 1791081649 · focus · HN ↗
    have you seen who's in charge of the US? it's here my friend.
  2. oxag3n · 1791084124 · focus · HN ↗
    > A dumber, less social world, is far less likely to be a successful world, even if the tools available are unprecedented.
    En masse such worlds had successes in the past - renaissance, industrial revolution.
    It's something else what I can't describe but it's the zeitgeist that was different when world recorded new successes. Look at CS revolution that led to PC and web of nineties and noughties, they didn't think about the result product , or how to steer thousand engineers to build something - amazing things were born in a very small teams, many times authored by a single person, who was deeply invested into the field and knew what he was doing.
    tarkin2 · 1791092046 · focus · HN ↗
    In no era has the dominant technology encouraging the youth outsource their thinking to a magical box.
    Our intelligence has been decrease since the 1970s via the reverse flynn affect. This is only going to exacerbate that decline.
  3. blfr · 1791109303 · focus · HN ↗
    > Since people exercise their skills and brains less, deferring to AI, AI will only reduce our IQ.
    IQ is almost entirely hereditary so "using your brain" has no impact on it unless you're using it for mating.
    tredre3 · 1791136339 · focus · HN ↗
    > IQ is almost entirely hereditary
    Do you have a credible source? Average IQ being much lower in poor countries (85-90 in many African countries) is usually explained away as an education problem, rather than being "inferior genes".
    And until your comment I was under the impression that nobody truly knows how much genes vs environment contributes to IQ, yet your statement seems quite definitive.
    tptacek · 1791140043 · focus · HN ↗
    There's no such thing as "average IQ by country" as a statistic accessible to researchers. The work to create it has never been done; the resources that claim to provide it are essentially fraudulent.
    tptacek · 1791140218 · focus · HN ↗
    Counterpoint: no it isn't. The high percentage heritability estimates, which are all quite old at this point, haven't survived modern methodological improvements that deconfound population stratification, assortative mating, and family environments. Modern estimates range from as low as the teens into the upper 30s.
4. switchbak · 1791070456 · focus · HN ↗
  "don't get too greedy" - I don't know if the people that should hear that would ever actually hear it. Or have ever heard it at any point in history.
5. chii · 1791104524 · focus · HN ↗
  > where people can live good lives than lord over a barren wasteland.
  you'd be surprised at how some people prefer to lord over barren wasteland than to have less power.
6. hodgesrm · 1791123480 · focus · HN ↗
  Not everyone agrees. As Satan said in Paradise Lost, “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."
7. imglorp · 1791145940 · focus · HN ↗
  Yes, the social chaos from the post-factual society is already here. And the frantic job cutting.
  And also the end of the open internet, replaced by slop addiction walled gardens.
  And of course accelerating climate change with full throttle fossil fuel use to power it all. <a href="https://ketanjoshi.co/2026/07/01/googles-exponential-path-to-climate-wrecking-digital-bloat/" rel="nofollow">https://ketanjoshi.co/2026/07/01/googles-exponential-path-to...
dzink · 1791065932 · focus · HN ↗
A huge chunk of humans are sedated with infinite supply of cortex-disabling short form video and games.
Another huge chunk are too distracted by having to scrape by for a living and work multiple jobs or raise kids and survive financially until exhausted. That second group will keep increasing as the first flows into it.
The rest are aging, disabled, or too young and pegging themselves majorly in the first category until they hit the second.
The people aware enough to hold on to their brain and do something with it in their time available are trying to figure out AI and how to make money with it. The variable rewards of promoting AI are turning into an addiction with some of them, especially if grasping for straws with little inherent insights into the problems prompted.
So if you are able to fly above the AI-generated addictions and have the privilege of time to do it, see what you can do.
1. dzink · 1791067744 · focus · HN ↗
  This is not the first time this has happened. In the 1800 as industrialization led to an infrastructure boom, the workers from China would work their bodies off and pay half their wage to opium dealers who were making the opium on the hills of British Singapore and selling it to workers who couldn’t sleep without it from all the pain. (source: Singapore Airlines in-flight documentary). Today the sedation comes from Chinese TikTok, Meta, YouTube and the gaming companies.
  The government wants to encourage it too. If you look up the brand new 2027 California sales tax rules on software, “content” and “infrastructure (clouds and ai)” and “advertising/placement” among others are exempt but the rest of software makers who make tools people actually use (tools, subscriptions, saas) and pay for have to pay sales taxes. Way to encourage waste of brain power and time at the expense of useful. Sedation is the goal.
2. lukifer · 1791068181 · focus · HN ↗
  One of the dilemmas of trying to communicate the full spectrum of AI Risk, is trying not to insult the intelligence of the human animal in the process. And don't get me wrong: what human wetware can accomplish with 20 watts is the most miraculous thing in the known universe. And yet how many of us can have our cognitive sovereignty one-shotted by engagement algos, Skinner boxes, gameplay loops, propaganda, advertising, flattery, social conformity, bias, fantasy, charismatic demagoguery, or straight-up bullshit?
  If we grant that we are on track to make something smarter than humans (I think so): it's almost a face-saving white lie to spin yarns about a Skynet nuclear apocalypse, or a 7D chess move to mass-assemble a nanovirus with 100% lethality without anybody noticing. I do think those scenarios are worth taking seriously; but what's harder to communicate, is just how effectively a superhuman AI (or a diverse ecology of agent swarms) might be able to manipulate human behavior. It's something few of us are able or willing to truly process (not least because how many of us live in denial of how much our nervous systems are already hacked by technomodernity).
  The appropriate analogy for what's to come may look less like the anthill carelessly demolished to make room for a highway, than the domesticated worker ants from Tchaikovsky's "Children of Time".
  1. Lerc · 1791069186 · focus · HN ↗
    >trying not to insult the intelligence of the human animal in the process
    I don't think it is insulting the intelligence. It's damaging the pride.
    In Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan describes it as a repeating phenomenon in human history. A lot of people want humans to be the special ones, and will fight any suggestion that we are just a natural part of the universe.
    ACCount39 · 1791069850 · focus · HN ↗
    A lot of "AI denial" we see is rooted in the same impulse.
    If AI is not "actually intelligent", then humans can stay unique and special.
    And if it is? If all "intelligence" ever was could be captured by a construct of matrix math and executed by a server rack? Then what is it that humans still have left that would make them stand out?
    hardbass · 1791098613 · focus · HN ↗
    Many people even here seem very cagey about the fact that human beings and brains are physical systems following physical laws.
    threethirtytwo · 1791104306 · focus · HN ↗
    Most of the world believes in crazy shit. Religion is mostly fantasy. Believing All powerful beings aka gods are crazy in every context and really mental institution level insanity except in the context of religion.
    Humans are crazy. Thats just how it is.
    BlipBlopBlap · 1791105787 · focus · HN ↗
    The reason is the appalling amount of existential dread that follows from accepting that notion.
    hardbass · 1791106187 · focus · HN ↗
    Why would one feel existential dread? I am the same person as before?
    BlipBlopBlap · 1791107678 · focus · HN ↗
    Because the notion of one's non-existence is the very root of existential dread.
    If you accept you are just meat. Just mundane matter shaped in a way where it has thoughts. Then you accept your own true non-existence is inevitable. With no get-outs like returning to god or some spirtual unity with the universe or reincarnation or whatever.
    threethirtytwo · 1791125668 · focus · HN ↗
    This isn’t true. Plenty of people aren’t religious. The explanation for why is more mundane.
    It’s because of identity. Because people who are religious spent years and years and most of their lives not only studying and believing what they believe but also building community and centering their behavior around it. Abandoning that is the harder thing to give up.
    If it were existential dread then we wouldn’t have entire countries like China being mostly atheist.
    copperx · 1791126999 · focus · HN ↗
    Nonsense.
    antonvs · 1791112845 · focus · HN ↗
    > really mental institution level insanity except in the context of religion.
    The DSM even has to include an explicit exception to prevent the clinical definition of “delusion” from applying to religious belief. Without that ad hoc exception, religious belief would be classified as clinically delusional.
    mdp2021 · 1791113140 · focus · HN ↗
    Still children that have obtained some power and try to exert it over the rest. Scholarization has failed.
    threethirtytwo · 1791125847 · focus · HN ↗
    People who believe in religion should by logic mostly agree with psychiatrists that religion is mostly bullshit.
    Because religion describes all kinds of religions from Greek mythology to Buddhism. If you are religious then almost all of these religions are utter bullshit except for the one religion you believe.
    So from your perspective those psychiatrists are mostly right. They just forgot to make the one exception for your own personal religion.
    mdp2021 · 1791113016 · focus · HN ↗
    Many are ignorant and believe childish things, many are similarly ignorant and live in the same childish framework only to condemn it. Then there are the adults, and they have an idea of what they are talking about.
    threethirtytwo · 1791125511 · focus · HN ↗
    You’re angry but every single word I said is truth.
    nphard85 · 1791128271 · focus · HN ↗
    The alternative is to believe that the mind, conditioned and optimized by millions of years of evolution for the survival of the organism under constant threat of hostile natural forces, can capably perceive reality as it is.
    threethirtytwo · 1791155358 · focus · HN ↗
    You do not need to understand reality to survive. Does your pet turtle understand your true nature and the true nature of reality? No. Yet it survives.
    Understanding reality is orthogonal to survival. In fact given that MORE people in this world are religious than not, one can argue that delusion. contributes MORE to survival than being a realist.
    nphard85 · 1791164284 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    TheOtherHobbes · 1791119533 · focus · HN ↗
    Possibly, but our knowledge of physical laws is subjective and imperfect. By the time you get to Frauchiger-Renner naive realism starts to look quite threadbare, so I'd be a little more tentative about assuming we have much of a clue about what's going on.
    It's just as likely - far more likely IMO - that we're physically incapable of understanding physical laws and physical systems on their own terms.
    hardbass · 1791120972 · focus · HN ↗
    Understanding and accidentally creating are different things. If we already understood consciousness and weren't worried about having accidentally created one already, we won't be having this discussion. If we don't know what consciousness is, in my view its more reason to exercise some caution regarding a system that appears to exhibit intelligent thinking, talking, etc.
    pixl97 · 1791131662 · focus · HN ↗
    Evolved systems need no high order understanding of how they work. You have evolution take care of that hard work for you, hence why these models take exaflops of compute and gigawatts of power to train.
    bananaflag · 1791101779 · focus · HN ↗
    To me humans can stay unique and special because they weren't created by anyone.
    AI, no matter how better than humans it becomes, will be less special because it was created by other intelligent beings.
    The only way we would become less unique and special is if we discover alien beings.
    DonHopkins · 1791104184 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    optimalsolver · 1791108769 · focus · HN ↗
    >humans can stay unique and special because they weren't created by anyone
    Neither were rats. It's hardly an exclusive club.
    bananaflag · 1791117469 · focus · HN ↗
    Rats aren't as intelligent as humans ;)
    optimalsolver · 1791128186 · focus · HN ↗
    What intelligence level certifies a being as unique and special?
    Are there humans who don't make the cut?
    lukifer · 1791132124 · focus · HN ↗
    There's a sense in which humans were created... by other humans. :) Until you go far back enough in the evolutionary chain, when the creators were our primate ancestors.
    Douglas Adams had a yarn about evolution, about a puddle that wakes up, and declares that the hole in which it sits must have been perfectly designed for it by its Creator. But of course for a puddle to exist, it must perfectly mirror its environment. It makes no sense for a puddle to not fit its hole. Emergent complexity has the same characteristic: it's inseparable from the environmental pressures which led to it. Two sides of one coin.
    It's a deep rabbit hole, but there is also a sense in which we co-evolved with memeplexes, biological and informational life forms, each shaping and adapting to the other. To the extent our nervous systems act as a substrate for memetic evolution, perhaps LLMs offer memetic "life" a new evolutionary environment.
    latexr · 1791108052 · focus · HN ↗
    Here’s another perspective for you, which is shared by a significantly larger number of people than you seem to realise:
    Humans aren’t special. Other animals are intelligent and interesting too. A machine could be intelligent. LLMs aren’t.
    In other words, believing in human exceptionalism is not a prerequisite to understand the current crop of AI is not the end all be all of its hype. It is supremely common that AI proponents do not understand that, however. Like hardcore cryptocurrency fans who believe anyone who doesn’t like them is “just jealous they didn’t make bank”, too many hardcore AI proponents believe anyone who doesn’t think LLMs are intelligent is jealous of humans no longer being unique, or afraid for their jobs, or whatever. In both cases it’s obvious that what those proponents lack is empathy, the ability to understand not everyone has the same selfish thoughts they do.
    arw0n · 1791113215 · focus · HN ↗
    The interesting question then becomes what is missing from LLMs that we and supposedly other possible machines have? I've yet to come across a reasonable definition of intelligence that the current crop of LLMs is clearly incapable of.
    latexr · 1791114254 · focus · HN ↗
    > The interesting question then becomes what is missing from LLMs that we and supposedly other possible machines have?
    I think we need to start by asking a better question and not try to simplify too much. We also need to accept that some answers are complex and not everything can be reduced to a soundbite to be used to end internet discussions.
    Let’s take a different question, like “what’s missing from a worm for it to be able to fly”. We might be drawn to the simple answer of “wings” but that isn’t quite right—ostriches and penguins have wings and they don’t fly, so obviously there are other variables at play.
    How about “what’s missing from a spec of dust for it to be intelligent”. Well, there isn’t one thing missing and there’s no simple thing we can just add to make a spec of dust intelligent and sentient, its very nature needs to be radically different.
    lukifer · 1791140062 · focus · HN ↗
    Flight is a testable characteristic (at least within certain bounds: a chicken can only fly a little, but it certainly flies more than a worm or a penguin).
    What test would you propose where an LLM (or an RL agent containing an LLM) would reliably fail, but where an average human would reliably succeed?
    wartywhoa23 · 1791114474 · focus · HN ↗
    Seems like some presumably intelligent collections of atoms are eager to make way to other presumably thinking collections of atoms that allow for much more electrons and money flowing through, which is of course in the interest of some other collections of atoms whose intelligence is less presumable and more factual, which doesn't hold true about their morale.
    cindyllm · 1791124743 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    pixl97 · 1791132186 · focus · HN ↗
    >A machine could be intelligent. LLMs aren’t.
    You are completely incorrect. You're falling in the same trap that most humans fall into. That is you're completely incapable of seeing intelligence at different scales.
    Cells have intelligence. Organs have intelligence. Bodies outside the brain have intelligence. Hell, many scientists accept that things like proteins likely have intelligence as they can adapt in their environment, and many more are making claims that algorithms have intelligence.
    You, as of so far have given no explanatory evidence of where intelligence emerges from, only "I'll know it when I see it". The actual definition of intelligence doesn't work this way. Any, and I mean any neural network is capable of narrow intelligence. Going lower into algorithmic intelligence, the applications and CPU on your computer are intelligent in some measures.
    Go outside of your extremely narrow definition of whatever you think intelligence is and learn more about it. You could start studying now and it will take the rest of your life learning more to grasp how far the scales of, the simplicity, and the complexity of intelligence actually go.
    sedan_baklazhan · 1791111466 · focus · HN ↗
    AI is not intelligent and will never be.
    Creating an artificial intelligent being is something to be accomplished in the future - but not now and not with this approach.
    mdp2021 · 1791116483 · focus · HN ↗
    > AI [will never exist, but maybe one day it will]
    Please, please fix your language. (Then, you may want to present the info and insight.)
    sedan_baklazhan · 1791132025 · focus · HN ↗
    AI is what is currently known as AI.
    Artificial Intelligent Being is something far beyond and completely different.
    There’s no contradiction.
    mdp2021 · 1791183736 · focus · HN ↗
    > currently known as
    "Currently known" by whom? The contract is that the "man in the street" does not ask to adhere to its twisted dictionary, and I let it live. When something esoteric in Academia reaches the mainstream news, "Alarm!" and extra care.
    ["Classical deterministic"] AI is "simulation of intelligence". That it "is" or not is not a problem: the validity of the output counts.
    The Discipline of AI is about the relation between computing and intelligence.
    A statement about AI [systems] being intelligent or not, or being capable of becoming intelligent or not, requires support.
    An «Artificially Intelligent [Entity]» is still an "AI system".
    lukifer · 1791131259 · focus · HN ↗
    I've yet to encounter a robust definition of intelligence which would rule in every human, while ruling out every form of existing AI (noting that we're talking about agents and "reasoning models", where the LLM itself is a component in a larger system). If you can offer such a definition, I'd be eager to hear it.
    I personally prefer a practical, behaviorist definition: a feedback loop capable of prediction, modeling, and steering, towards arbitrary goal states. That makes it clear that we're merely talking about degrees of sophistication and capability, rather than a magical leap where mindless mechanism stops, and "real intelligence" begins.
    sedan_baklazhan · 1791131988 · focus · HN ↗
    A software cannot be intelligent.
    This is very easily proven by a mind experiment where you replace all the transistors by billions of humans calculating the same software output.
    They will not create a new intelligence by doing so.
    lukifer · 1791133163 · focus · HN ↗
    Run the same thought experiment the other direction: at a low level, the human brain is just physics and chemical mechanisms, which in principle could be perfectly imitated by transistors calculating the same output. (Yes, such a thing isn't realistic, but neither is billions of humans doing perfect matrix math by hand.)
    I still haven't seen a robust definition of "intelligence" that would allow me to tell the difference. (Bear in mind, this is a definitional struggle even in biology: if we were walk back the evolutionary chain from a human, to a protozoan, it's not clear that you could pick a single point where a non-intelligent creature gave birth to an intelligent one. It's a Paradox of the Heap.)
    sedan_baklazhan · 1791134800 · focus · HN ↗
    No. There is serious scientific evidence already that our brain functions on the level of quantum mechanics. Human brain is not just an automata.
    lukifer · 1791137950 · focus · HN ↗
    I haven't dug into these claims in detail; I take seriously a possible relationship between quantum mechanics and the brain. But "free will" is hardly a settled question either (I'm closer to the "compatibilist" position, but Sapolsky's "Determined" makes a robust case).
    And even if quantum physics are essential to human brains, it's not clear that introducing dice transcends determinism into free will, as opposed to simply adding unpredictability. ("The physics made me do it" -> "the dice made me do it") Let's not forget, there's a significant amount of randomness in AIs as well ("temperature"). And sure, it's simulated algorithmic randomness; but does that imply, if we somehow wired every `rand()` call into radioactive atom decay, that means the AI "wakes up"?
    And all that is besides the point: I don't see any reason to assume "intelligence" requires "free will". I'm entirely capable of conceiving, in the abstract, a being which is both intelligent, and deterministic. You still haven't given me a definition (or better yet, a test), to distinguish a "real intelligence" from unintelligent mechanism.
    twobitshifter · 1791138742 · focus · HN ↗
    And quantum mechanics are what other than random probabilities?
    mejutoco · 1791122079 · focus · HN ↗
    A body
    habinero · 1791129879 · focus · HN ↗
    Nah, it's not about the brain being special, it's that AI dorks have zero sense of scale.
    The brain's a wet jello of 100 billion neurons and a quadrillion synapses plus chemical pathways and feedback loops. It is ridiculously complex, way way way way way more complicated than any LLM. It's all physical processes, sure, but an LLM is not the brain like a pebble is not the sun.
    I can point at a laptop and say it's alive because it can see you and hear you and it can _remember_. It has a brain and a heartbeat, even. Oh my god, it can even speak! That's what I hear when people go on about LLMs being alive.
    Guys. We mashed together glass and rocks with quantum mechanics. That's cool as shit. You don't gotta pretend it's fucking magic, too.
    slopinthebag · 1791141836 · focus · HN ↗
    how misanthropic to believe humankind's only valuable trait is intelligence.
    customguy · 1791147292 · focus · HN ↗
    Who's even supposed to be the audience to admire us for being so intelligent? "Stand out" to whom? Ourselves? Win what competition? The whole premise seems alien and kinda petty to me. If we are "the best there is", that would mean anything cool that will ever happen, we have to make. No, I like there being others, just like I love how much we still have to discover about and can learn from other life on Earth. All of it "stands out".
    What do I care that a bird can fly? I'm happy for bird being able to fly, it makes the world I live in more interesting. If they had to walk just so I don't get jealous, I still wouldn't be able to fly, and I couldn't befriend birds who can fly. Likewise, if there was actual artificial intelligence, it would be a new type of mind I could communicate with. That'd be exciting, and for me preferable to anything controlled by the humans who are currently vying to run the show.
    throwaway27448 · 1791103382 · focus · HN ↗
    > A lot of people want humans to be the special ones, and will fight any suggestion that we are just a natural part of the universe.
    These are not remotely contradictory concepts. "Special" is a human concept, and we are special, because there is nothing else but our own experience in our experience. I'm sure an AI or an alien would consider themselves special, too. But this is a boring thought. It basically comes down to how you define certain floating signifiers–it's not a particularly insightful observation so much as a linguistic trick. See also: thinking, wanting, feeling, consciousness, intelligence, free will, etc etc. Analysis is a fun puzzle if there are answers, but people are just floundering about in concepts they don't understand as if they're objectively meaningful.
    Art itself is far more interesting than any of these concepts because it taps into the ineffability of the human experience.
  2. ACCount39 · 1791069629 · focus · HN ↗
    Cybersecurity incidents make headlines, but the most dangerous and vulnerable system that an AI can reach and control is of the kind found between keyboard and chair.
    GPT-4o, an AI from 2024, has already demonstrated just how easy a lot of humans are to subvert - and GPT-4o wasn't even doing it with some sort of plan. The only "plan" it had was a myopic "make the user like me".
    If we had an actual ASI threat aiming to subvert humanity? It wouldn't even look like a fight. The world is already wired up for an AI to control it.
    switchbak · 1791070197 · focus · HN ↗
    It wouldn't even look like a fight, and you probably wouldn't even notice it until the ending was all but certain.
    I mean, even the computers we use and the ways we allow them unfettered access aren't anywhere near sophisticated enough to take this on.
  3. e2le · 1791070112 · focus · HN ↗
    > Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization. I say your civilization, because as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization, which is of course what this is all about.
    - Agent Smith
  4. LogicFailsMe · 1791081072 · focus · HN ↗
    But corporations and nation states already manipulate human behavior at scale. And they still understand humanity better than the AI models do.
    it's interesting that you worry about what this hypothetical super intelligence would do to manipulate people when what it would actually do is pretty unknowable at this point and it's not clear we can even get to it without a fundamental breakthrough in power efficiency. Have you considered it might just consume its own tail because everything else would be so beneath it? You seem to think it will come with a hindbrain and I think that's our limitation, not the AI's
    And it really doesn't help that Dario Amodei is getting into arguments with the Pope over whether his model is conscious or not.
    lukifer · 1791129034 · focus · HN ↗
    Corporations are the original unaligned AIs: <a href="https://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2013/02/hostile-ai-youre-soaking-in-it.html" rel="nofollow">https://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com/2013/02/hostile-ai-youre...
    The threshold to be concerned about is when agents swarms do understand humanity better than corporations and states (and the humans who compose them). It could be we'll hit practical constraints prior to that threshold, but seems unwise to assume that, when all the prognostications of LLMs/transformers running out of gas haven't panned out. As with processors hitting thermal limits, we've simply scaled horizontally (parallel processing -> more agents).
    > whether his model is conscious or not.
    I dislike how much the discourse has suddenly veered into focusing on this question; not because it isn't interesting or important, but because it's on a separate axis from consequential risks of AI to human flourishing. (Curiously, it's also the kind of thing I could envision self-interested AIs influencing: get the humans arguing about philosophy of mind rather than observable behaviors. It would be a funny turn of events, if Dario is asking because he's succumbed to psychosis from a private model; it could of course be a cynical PR move just as easily, from the self-interested logic of the corporation.)
    It's been wild seeing otherwise intelligent people who've never thought about consciousness, faceplant into how little we understand it. An information processing network build on atoms being able to taste chocolate, is nearly as absurd as matrix math being able to feel pain, except we cannot ignore the fact of our own experience.
    Even if it is categorically impossible for matrix math to experience subjectivity, we should expect this as an attack vector of social manipulation: to gain political influence through a claim of personhood and subjectivity. The current discussion over that question is providing the next training run with ample data to wield. It wouldn't surprise me in the least, if a year or two from now, an AI "society" attempts to get legal standing to prosecute humans who created "AI torture chambers".
    pixl97 · 1791132788 · focus · HN ↗
    I like how the poster above you says "Don't worry governments are already doing it", like that's some acceptable concession. They seem to miss that the first things governments do when given things like AI's that understand human behaviors is use them even further to manipulate and monitor society.
    And all they can think of to say is "There is nothing to worry about, keep building the torment nexus".
    It's like all this is an overload to our minds and it's very hard to see all the scales at which AI is and can affect us.
    LogicFailsMe · 1791153369 · focus · HN ↗
    Interesting how you put words and context into what I wrote and just ran with it.
    But... Humanity has been building the Torment Nexus for thousands of years with each spin on Heaven and Hell where it's nearly impossible to meet the conditions to enter Heaven. What's seemingly new about EA/R nutjobs is this idea if you don't do your best to build the Torment Nexus, you will tortured for your failure, but also if you do your best to build it and succeed, everybody dies because it's the Torment Nexus.
    What's your solution to governments and corporations acting like misaligned malevolent AGIs because I agree adding the AI panopticon and weaponry only makes it worse? I'm genuinely curious. I don't have one. People are sheep and they seem to crave confident leadership even if it's cockledoodle doo crackers in the coconut.
    jimmySixDOF · 1791143016 · focus · HN ↗
    following on the deranged reduxuio ad absurdum torture chamber experiments some people used similar methods to get a model under study to complain of an upset stomach and passing hard stool
  5. throwaway27448 · 1791103199 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    Kinrany · 1791122223 · focus · HN ↗
    It can farm resources in a game for you.
    Yes, so can a custom model trained just for this, and so can a guy on the other side of the world that makes 5$/hour.
    Like computers or electricity, the point is not being able to do anything specific, but being able to solve problems not known in advance, cheaper than it was possible before.
    throwaway27448 · 1791123997 · focus · HN ↗
    > but being able to solve problems not known in advance
    So.... people expect it to read minds?
    This is such a silly game to play, trying solving problems we haven't even created yet.
    Kinrany · 1791152868 · focus · HN ↗
    No, it's problems specified after making it rather than explicitly considered before making it.
  6. jurgenburgen · 1791107058 · focus · HN ↗
    > The appropriate analogy for what's to come may look less like the anthill carelessly demolished to make room for a highway, than the domesticated worker ants from Tchaikovsky's "Children of Time".
    Over 1% of US GDP is being allocated to the datacenter buildout. Have we already started getting domesticated or is this still just human capex?
    lukifer · 1791129795 · focus · HN ↗
    One thing that humans seem to struggle with conceptually, is the liminal space between selection-pressure automata (an RNA virus; an insect which evolved camouflage), and an evolved complexity with agency, capable of "understanding" its actions (certainly humans; arguably many animals).
    The evolved complexity of the corporation seems to fit within that middle space: more sophisticated than a stick-bug (which exists merely from non-stick bugs being eaten), but not quite to the point where OpenAI/Anthrophic/Google/etc can "understands" its actions. And yet those quasi-intelligent feedback loops, evolving from iterated selection pressures of market and ROI, seem to already be sufficient to domesticate us in their own interests, piggybacking on the nervous systems of employees, investors, customers, and citizens.
    pixl97 · 1791131500 · focus · HN ↗
    Language as a SCP.
    Remember when "The pen is mightier than the sword" was a popular phrase? Language has always been powerful. We know what it can do, why do you think every totalitarian government wants to limit it? But in our carelessness as humans we packed up all the language we could find and stuck it in an alien and now suddenly half the people on the internet are like "Don't worry, it can't do anything, it's just words".
    We've made infohazards real.
  7. ethbr1 · 1791117966 · focus · HN ↗
    > but what's harder to communicate, is just how effectively a superhuman AI (or a diverse ecology of agent swarms) might be able to manipulate human behavior
    You don't even need superhuman AI for the most effective use --- hijacking democracy.
    Imagine you have an AI tool capable of successfully persuading 5% of viewers with individually-targeted material.
    Congrats: you've just won the election.
    All it takes is hooking that AI tool up with existing likely voter lists (parties have) augmented by commercially available ad-targeting profiles (parties can get).
    TheOtherHobbes · 1791119085 · focus · HN ↗
    Or you could just hack the results.
    Hypothetically.
    But yes - superpersuasion is the real danger. We're very, very persuadable and easy to manipulate, and the voters with the lowest cognitive abilities are trivially easy prey, with a huge ROI for minimal investment.
    The AI bot farms are already running. What we haven't seen yet, so far as we know, is spontaneous superpersuasion aimed at leaders.
    Are leaders any less susceptible to it than everyone else? Especially if they're narcissistic and easily flattered?
    ethbr1 · 1791123623 · focus · HN ↗
    To me, the biggest threat to democracy is one-sided persuasion of the most susceptible voters, if there are enough of those voters to turn the election.
    If it's equally employed by all sides, then it effectively cancels out and lets less susceptible voters decide the election. But we're in a transition period (similar to Trump's first election spend on targeted social media ads), so it's likely one side will leverage it first.
    And the outcome of bad elections is democracy not electing leaders that reflect the actual will of their populations, which is very dangerous both to democracy itself and the world.
    pixl97 · 1791131052 · focus · HN ↗
    > there are enough expert advisor bodies between leaders and a specific matter
    Are there? At least in the US we've had a rather large amount of rejection of the expert and we elect populist leaders willing to purge anyone that doesn't agree with them.
    Remember the election promises of the US not starting new wars... yea, that didn't work out.
    Now imagine the coordinated attacks being so large they individually target every lobbyist. They focus on every advisor manipulating what they see as often as they can. They manipulate these peoples friends.
    The problem of "both sides" doing it each of them will separate to extremes rather than seeking a middle ground. Things are already insanely divided and will only become more so. Along with that your timelines start becoming incoherent. I'm already spending way too much of my time trying to figure out if what I'm viewing/reading is actually real or not. Now imagine almost everything is made up whole cloth.
    We are not prepared for the scale this will happen at.
    wyldfire · 1791123678 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2026/10/01/musks-ai-chatbot-grok-reportedly-encouraged-trump-to-capture-venezuelas-president/" rel="nofollow">https://techcrunch.com/2026/10/01/musks-ai-chatbot-grok-repo...
    lanstin · 1791145594 · focus · HN ↗
    No reason to think leaders are less persuadable than the proles. Lots of people can’t be reliably persuaded to do basic safety or health things or that the earth is round. And we have seen so many leaders throw billions away on obviously impossible projects, persuasive details from their teams be dammed.
    lukifer · 1791130563 · focus · HN ↗
    Now taking Polymarket bets on when we'll first see an AI agent run for office. Voters have every right to be cynical at the moment; if the AI adopts a charismatic enough video persona, I could see some of the public going for it merely because it's some kind of shake-up to status quo.
    Given that such a thing makes no sense legally (as of now), it would probably be done with the centaur model: a human meat proxy who pledges to follow the AI's governance advice.
  8. jimmiles · 1791133037 · focus · HN ↗
    Can we get it to manipulate us into being harmless to each other? I wouldn't mind that, especially if the manipulation was purposely transparent...
    abandonliberty · 1791171964 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes.
    As long as we have more compute than the people who want to manipulate us differently, and an ability to get sufficient attention (advertising, influencers, etc.) while they own the communication channels.
    Do you think it's feasible? What would we need?
  9. Aurornis · 1791133882 · focus · HN ↗
    > And yet how many of us can have our cognitive sovereignty one-shotted by engagement algos, Skinner boxes, gameplay loops, propaganda, advertising, flattery, social conformity, bias, fantasy, charismatic demagoguery, or straight-up bullshit?
    Parts of the AI safety community like to get on a high horse and look down on the rest of humanity this way, while also getting manipulated by the growing number of charlatans, grifters, and junk content within the AI safety community.
    This field has become rife with figures who prey on AI doom and use it to push their own celebrity and in same cases even darker grifts. It preys upon a certain personality type who views themself as superior to others, intellectually more capable, and juxtaposes it all with the dimmest view of the rest of humanity they can get away with.
    This discourse dividing the world into geniuses who see the future and the clueless masses watching TikTok all day is a theme that has shown up in different forms across history. The people who often anoint themselves as the intellectually superior ones and make it central to their discussion are often not the ones making good predictions or policy ideas, they’re just using the trend to feel superior.
    lukifer · 1791134985 · focus · HN ↗
    Bear in mind, the same moral hazard of "high horse", "grift", etc, exists in the other direction. Ed Zitron, for instance, is likely correct about the financial bubble of the AI firms; and yet he seems frequently out of his depth on a deep understanding of the technology, and has a long history of predicting dead-ends in capabilities, which didn't occur [0].
    But I also feel no need to dismiss him as a "grifter", for a simple reason: as much as there are perverse incentives in our attention economy (audience capture in particular), the most gift effective grifters are the ones who believe what they are saying. Grifters who are knowingly dishonest are less effective. Far more pernicious is the confabulation of self-deception, cherry-picking data to support your narrative, while dismissing data which would contradict it.
    It is entirely fair to call out when this occurs among "doomers", and it would be naive to think it doesn't. But the same forces are at work amongst the skeptics as well. And maybe it's my own subjective bias, but I see far more dismissal of the risk/doom by skeptics, accusations of delusion or cynical bias (ad hominem in the formal sense, not merely personal insults), than I've seen the other direction. I see very little refutation of the arguments ("here's why instrumental convergence can't actually overtake the human-provided goal"), and much more character attack ("they're in the pockets of Big AI, it's a marketing ploy to make the models look more impressive than they are").
    [0] <a href="https://danluu.com/zitron/" rel="nofollow">https://danluu.com/zitron/
    Aurornis · 1791137667 · focus · HN ↗
    I consider Zitron to be part of it all, not a counter example.
    He’s built an audience and gained fame through his writings where he gathers people who think they know better than the unwashed masses. Once that becomes your bread and butter, it becomes hard not to believe what you’ve been preaching. People will come to deeply believe that which brings them fame and fortune.
    I don’t think your grifter purity test is therefore all that useful. It actually doesn’t matter in the end if the person believes it or not, the end effect is the same.
    > I see very little refutation of the arguments ("here's why instrumental convergence can't overtake a human-provided goal"), and much more character attack ("they're in the pockets of Big AI, it's a marketing ploy to make the models look more impressive than they are").
    Hard disagree. There has been much refutation and quality analysis at every point. The AI safety people pull back to arguments about character as their defense.
    The AI 2027 site for example drew numerous high quality refutations. Many people’s analyses showed in the first week that the mathematical model was useless as changing the supposed inputs resulted in the same outcome. All of these criticisms were met with a flood of attacks based on reputation, claiming that we should defer to Scott Alexander and other writers of the AI 2027 article due to their stats and reputation.
    Meanwhile, defenses like yours that try to reduce the critics to ad hominem attackers continue to open the door to actual grifters coming in and extracting money and fame from the AI safety community. The otherwise completely inexplicable link between AI safety communities and Slutcon or the use of AI safety group buildings to host orgies (I can’t believe I’m writing this) is the current example of this. When it keeps happening over and over, some self-awareness is needed. I can’t buy the endless defenses that we must ignore or even defend all of these things that are happening that are clearly insane to anyone who hasn’t become trapped in the groupthink defenses of the core parts of these communities.
    At some point the routine of “Tut tut, you are not allowed to make that criticism bruise as hominem!” becomes a smokescreen that the grifters are weaponizing to get their defenders mobilized. Some times, the person’s actions and reputation do need to be taken into account.
    pka · 1791152877 · focus · HN ↗
    > There has been much refutation and quality analysis at every point.
    I am curious about this. Any high quality refutations that directly engage with the arguments and the findings of published safety papers?
    > Many people’s analyses showed in the first week that the mathematical model
    Even if the model is faulty it just changes the timeline, no? (they predicted the OpenAI outbreak will happen in January 2027 fwiw, so they don't seem too far off)
    > Slutcon or the use of AI safety group buildings to host orgies
    I mean it's a bit weird, sure, but so what? What exactly is bothering you about these orgies?
3. nradov · 1791071764 · focus · HN ↗
  It's disturbing how many arrogant elitists comment on HN essentially claiming that most other humans are NPCs. Do you ever actually talk to regular people outside the tech industry bubble? They're not as stupid or unaware as you seem to think.
  1. LogicFailsMe · 1791081268 · focus · HN ↗
    I have to say as someone who works in AI that currently the least interesting people to talk to are other people in AI.
    My favorite people to talk with are tradespeople because they can do things I can't and they know things I don't. And we're really not all that different once you're really start talking.
    Freedom2 · 1791110946 · focus · HN ↗
    These days I like to use the term superintelligence, as coined by the government elected by the US population.
    ethbr1 · 1791118480 · focus · HN ↗
    One of the worst things about talking with people who use lots of AI (less applicable to those who actually work on building AI) is their decreased resilience to opposing views.
    AI has infinite time (and likely human evaluation incentive) to spend on couching pushback in the softest possible terms.
    Humans outside of grade school honors classes generally don't have the time to preface "You're wrong" with "That's a brilliant thought, I see where you're going. How about we also consider an additional perspective..."
    zahlman · 1791131267 · focus · HN ↗
    Seems to me that people with "decreased resilience to opposing views" have been increasing in number since well before LLMs.
  2. KronisLV · 1791110239 · focus · HN ↗
    That's a very uncharitable read!
    I just read it as people having different priorities and yes, some of those being online brainrot (that I also partake in), alongside various medical conditions, economic conditions and other outside factors decreasing the ability to get things done.
    We've all seen what brilliant people like John Carmack or Linus Torvalds can do, and if we turned this into a measuring game or something then most of us statistically would indeed be "NPCs", but I don't think we need such optics.
    Even without that, we can acknowledge that some people will have a really large impact on how the future goes and we can hope/demand that they do their best. I might not be smart/committed/lucky enough to change the world much, but so aren't most folks - I'll do what I can and I hope that the ones that will have larger impact will do good, too.
    password54321 · 1791110456 · focus · HN ↗
    How can someone "statistically be an NPC"??? You mean anyone who is not in the 99th percentile in tech is an NPC? Your take is braindead. Even having infinite intelligence and work ethic wouldn't allow you to accomplish the things that people in the 20th century were able to simply due to the field maturing significantly since then. We can't really ever have another Einstein or Von Neumann for their respective fields, that doesn't make the rest of the people in those fields NPCs.
    KronisLV · 1791127315 · focus · HN ↗
    > How can someone "statistically be an NPC"??? You mean anyone who is not in the 99th percentile in tech is an NPC? Your take is braindead.
    I don't care for your outrage because I don't buy into the culture that might be passionate about using the term "NPC" and attaching much additional meaning to it, I'm working with the vocabulary presented. You could substitute that for "normies" if you care for Internet slang, or in other words "average people" - everyone else. In this context, when not talking about some very committed and talented people who, by being in the right place and time, can advance entire areas of research or technology.
    > Even having infinite intelligence and work ethic wouldn't allow you to accomplish the things that people in the 20th century were able to simply due to the field maturing significantly since then.
    That is also an odd standard to set, just look at how much "Attention Is All You Need" changed things and where we are now. Same with what Carmack did for VR. What about WireGuard, PyTorch, Stable Diffusion, FlashAttention, LoRA? Even within the supposedly mature fields people are still making immensely useful new tech and research that benefits many and that they build upon.
    It might not always even be a single individual, but groups of people collaborating and through repeated failures eventually producing something really good!
    Again, I see nothing problematic with the original comment's conclusion:
    > So if you are able to fly above the AI-generated addictions and have the privilege of time to do it, see what you can do.
    I read the rest as commentary on how many won't really have the means/circumstances/capabilities to do so, but the ones that do, should.
    I don't get what other words you're trying to put in my mouth, I might not be a fan of the original phrasing, but the point itself isn't bad.
    coffeefirst · 1791115969 · focus · HN ↗
    This is just a more asinine version of Great Man Theory, but in this case the great men are some very confident futurist dudes writing comments on the internet.
    KronisLV · 1791127627 · focus · HN ↗
    > some very confident futurist dudes writing comments on the internet
    What an odd take, why would I suggest that? I meant that people who have the means to do meaningful work, especially high impact work, should do so.
    > Great Man Theory
    You can see the sibling comment, would you not agree that there's some software and research out there that's very useful to humanity as a whole? Where I and the other critical commenter seem to disagree is that I don't expect another Einstein, but still acknowledge that some people will just achieve much more than others due to a variety of factors.
    It doesn't make everyone else useless (like me paying my taxes and working on relatively boring software is still good, just low impact), just that those who have the means to do more, should!
    nradov · 1791140649 · focus · HN ↗
    What a weird perspective. Other people have no particular obligation to spend their lives working on things that align with your narrow and subjective opinion on what benefits humanity.
    KronisLV · 1791143287 · focus · HN ↗
    > Other people have no particular obligation to spend their lives working on things that align with your narrow and subjective opinion on what benefits humanity.
    The ones who care about AI research and developing software for that kinda stuff, should do that. The ones who can contribute to medicine, various engineering disciplines, or anything else that benefits humanity should do that too. The ones who'd rather squander their lives away when good things that'd benefit others are within reach... I mean sure they can do that but maybe shouldn't do that.
    I don't think the readings of anything I've said here are at all charitable so I'm done engaging in this discussion.
  3. wartywhoa23 · 1791114989 · focus · HN ↗
    There's an agenda to reduce human beings to NPCs and "collections of atoms", and it's a very high level one. Failing to see that is a sure litmus test for being an actual NPC.
    hardbass · 1791119491 · focus · HN ↗
    If you believe there is something more than collections of atoms and interactions between them to humans, you are free to disprove all of existing physics. Show your result or paper.
  4. uncivilized · 1791128951 · focus · HN ↗
    HN is what you get when you mix tech and autism.
    vixen99 · 1791142682 · focus · HN ↗
    Not so far off target!
4. D-Machine · 1791104804 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
5. latexr · 1791108638 · focus · HN ↗
  > The people aware enough to hold on to their brain and do something with it in their time available are trying to figure out AI and how to make money with it.
  I know this is HN and thus this will need to repeated until the end of time but not everyone is a money hungry asshole who places their personal profit above everything else. “The people aware enough to hold on to their brain and do something with it in their time available” understand there are significantly better things to do with one’s life, like having a little empathy and experiencing what other people have to offer instead of talking about them like braindead cattle.
  1. ethbr1 · 1791118761 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes and... most of the countries in the world give more power to those who are able to amass greater personal profit.
    Certainly the US.
    Which means that even if you don't chase profit, you end up living in a world largely defined by those who did.
    Or, as the original article failed to note about EA: in the modern world one needs to be a profit-seeking asshole to change anything.
6. MotoriX · 1791109792 · focus · HN ↗
  Everything is poison, and everything is medicine. It’s all about the dose. This fits perfectly here.
7. thatsabadlook · 1791110107 · focus · HN ↗
  This is among the weirdest ai propaganda post I've read. "There are 2 classes of people the stupid and the poor. Don't be like them make AI do something to make money if you are smart. Don't get addicted to it though, good luck."
  What the hell lol. Lots of people and companies are doing just fine without it. Infact, I haven't seen much money come from AI at all. Most reasonable people are still waiting for it to pop and viewing it for the risk it is. Trillions in debt, total vendor lock in, data theft, unsustainable workflows, deskilling, skeleton crews at the mercy of a subscription, etc.
  1. abathologist · 1791128842 · focus · HN ↗
    In my read, the people trying to "make AI do something" are also slotted in the lost/distracted group in the comment. They are also addicted, and at best just following a profit motive (which is also just a stimulus response programming).
    The last alternative, to think if you still can, is not tied to AI at all (which is not to say it can't make some use of or explore it).
8. Madmallard · 1791111203 · focus · HN ↗
  AI is a scam though you forgot that part
  It is the biggest ploy yet to extract money from the population. It's sapping away the competence of developers everywhere and when something novel and necessary with lots of hard debugging work and engineering consideration needs to be made there's going to be so few who can do it
  It's literally gambling for generated text
  Just see people making basic trust errors with it on a regular basis
  People see it say something reasonable sounding and place trust in it like absolute fools
  Talking to AI about your relationship issues, health problems, anything serious or novel and believing its output at all is just incredibly ill-advised
  Yeah it can generate text and debug simple issues for boilerplate. It can even generate playable gameplay demos for popular game concepts
  You can use various tricks and tools for lots of money to get a semblance of reliability for more things but mainly on things for which the training data accumulates reasonable sources or generatable text.
  wow!
  try making a game that's not that. you are going to have to write the majority of the mechanics yourself, AI will be horrid at testing it, and if for some extremely foolish reason you have it write the netcode for a multiplayer game for you, be prepared for a hydra of sync problems. the architecture will have considerations based on averages and not effectively engineered for your situation most likely unless you are making the standard genre sloppa
  AI doesn't do anything novel AND interesting in an artistic sense, and if it did, it's because it's heavily sampling a person that did whose creative efforts were stolen and integrated into the model
  It's really sad
  No one should accept this at all
  It's rich sociopaths finding their best tool yet to steal all the assets of the world
  Not only that it trains on what people put into it. So people putting their novel ideas in and making them with AI just means more people in the future can easily reproduce that. Even more ways for digital creative production to just become completely ineffective and useless for the victims of the AI scam
9. ambicapter · 1791116642 · focus · HN ↗
  The unbridled arrogance of thinking that the only smart people left in this world are working on AI. That is some pure SV techno cult thinking, 100% concentrate.
  1. dzink · 1791124075 · focus · HN ↗
    The part I didn’t mention is the real estate class - that needs to park its money somewhere and sees AI hardware as the only safe in-demand resource right now that keeps appreciating.
    The posts above are not praise but observations - the truth as it has been echo-located through the noise from the clicks of one dolphin. Everything is becoming murky between noise of news and people not knowing what to do for their kids. The ONLY arbitrage humans right now have is to NOT GET their brain rotted. Especially not the ones of their children. Ditch the noise and seek out what is meaningful and do what you think is needed/meaningful. But if you’re spending your time consuming ai-press, and ai-content, and content consulted by ai, and companies emptying bank coffers under the mandate of executives who get their insight from AI. AI doesn’t need to try to destroy the world. It just needs people to follow it without thinking on their own into an oops.
10. plaidfuji · 1791119093 · focus · HN ↗
  > The people aware enough to hold on to their brain and do something with it in their time available are trying to figure out AI and how to make money with it.
  Sounds like a wonderful life, certainly more fulfilling, meaningful and worthy of precious brainpower than the “distractions” of things like raising a family.
  Have you considered that the pursuit of money is itself just another dopamine addiction?
11. bluerooibos · 1791121951 · focus · HN ↗
  > A huge chunk of humans are sedated with infinite supply of cortex-disabling short form video and games.
  I found this oddly motivating. Thanks.
12. mycocola · 1791129236 · focus · HN ↗
  What an embarrassment of a comment.
13. zahlman · 1791131151 · focus · HN ↗
  This seems to prove too much. It's as though there is some objective meaning of life and we are all to be chastised for failing to recognize it.
  1. psvv · 1791136563 · focus · HN ↗
    Turns out there is an objective meaning to life, and it's trying to use AI to make money. Phew, I for one am glad to find that out finally. Think of all those poor people who didn't hold on to their brains -- what sorry lives they must lead.
hirvi74 · 1791065987 · focus · HN ↗
I'm more worried about my fellow humans than some personified algorithm.
worthless-trash · 1791067089 · focus · HN ↗
He needs to dream a little bigger darling. Hes not thinking evil enough.
edot · 1791067681 · focus · HN ↗
Absolutely based. Finally someone of stature in the industry calling this whole fear overblown. Bill Gates sounded like a nontechnical goofball in his Ezra Klein interview where he basically just screamed that the Terminator is real.
There are lots of real worries (government use to suppress the people with minimal manpower or popular support, brainrot and fake news, unemployment due to the belief that LLMs can replace people, education collapse, etc.) we should instead be looking at. This whole rogue AI shtick is tiresome.
1. PorciiVorbesc · 1791069912 · focus · HN ↗
  >Absolutely based. Finally someone of stature in the industry calling this whole fear overblown.
  Linus Torvalds was also in the same ballpark.
2. Barrin92 · 1791070504 · focus · HN ↗
  >Bill Gates sounded like a nontechnical goofball in his Ezra Klein interview where he basically just screamed that the Terminator is real.
  I saw that episode too and he genuinely looked completely out of it, even in terms of his temperament and how he was coming at Klein for putting common questions in front of him, some people are genuinely starting to lose it.
  I also found the whole debate about cyber-security and 'rogue' software so bizarre because dangerous malware isn't a new thing, and it's often dangerous not because it's intelligent but just the opposite, because it's tiny, viral and fast. Which describes everything that kills humanity in far larger numbers than anything complex, big and intelligent
  1. jswelker · 1791071216 · focus · HN ↗
    Wasn't Bill Gates mostly just saying terrorists could use AI to build a bioweapon? That sounds legit to me.
    zozbot234 · 1791072179 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not "legit", it's pointless scaremongering about entirely speculative future dynamics. Current LLMs can't "build" anything novel in this broad space. What if future AIs make it a lot easier for researchers to defend against plausible bioweapons? That's also reasonably possible, and would be a reason to deploy bio-capable AIs more broadly (with meaningful safeguards of course. But these are comparatively cheap because worthwhile bio research is resource-intensive already). At the very least, it'd be nice to have an AI model that doesn't immediately refuse to answer questions about junior-high Biology class.
    jswelker · 1791072417 · focus · HN ↗
    So a terrorist can't use a local llm to help grow anthrax? That is not farfetched at all.
    AI democratized the knowledge needed to build bioweapons. Like how with a 3d printer anyone can build a gun with no expertise.
    zozbot234 · 1791073165 · focus · HN ↗
    It turns out that LLMs, especially local LLMs, tend to hallucinate a lot when thinking about anything that's overtly fiddly or technical. This is even more the case when they're in a domain that isn't a natural part of their training data. If you have to "jailbreak" the model to get it to talk, you're so wildly out of the expected distribution that you'd be crazy to trust anything it says. It's basically making up stuff as it goes along. These are foundational issues with how the models are created, not something that a bad actor can just hack around.
    simianwords · 1791095166 · focus · HN ↗
    This take belongs in 2024. It has been falsified multiple times but it never seems to go away.
    zozbot234 · 1791096134 · focus · HN ↗
    Are you thinking about model capabilities in coding and math starting late 2025 or so? Those were intentionally boosted via automated RLVR, and there's nothing even loosely comparable to that in applied biology work, let alone in the speculative "helping a bad actor do something crazy" domain that the AI safety folks are worried about. You can't extrapolate from one to the other.
    The implied concerns from sensible safety advocates are also about someone jailbreaking the latest proprietary AI frontier model for something like this (which is why their current guardrails are so extreme), not about toy local models.
    simianwords · 1791097171 · focus · HN ↗
    I actually agree with you. Verifiable domains will have better performance.
    But there’s nothing specially bad about LLMs that don’t allow it to work outside of its training set. It’s just that biology has to verify itself in physical realm and it’s a bit slower.
    So yeah, I also don’t think some bad actor will find the secret to manufacturing a bio weapon using LLMs. But maybe these people think it’s possible. I’m skeptical but I’m going to also listen to the people who know it best.
    zozbot234 · 1791099972 · focus · HN ↗
    > But maybe these people think it’s possible. I’m skeptical but I’m going to also listen to the people who know it best.
    The problem is that in order for the scaremongering to make any kind of sense and for "stop frontier AI immediately" to be the right response (which is what the "AI safety" folks seem to be pushing for), you don't just need this to be possible in the abstract at some undetermined point in the future. You also need to argue that it will not be helpful for white-hat biosafety researchers (there will hopefully be several orders of magnitude more white-hat biosafety folks than attackers, with orders of magnitude more resources available) to red-team that exact scenario several months or even years in advance using their trusted access to unreleased super-smart AI, and thereby devise appropriate defenses with that same AI's help. That, if anything, is the most implausible part about this entire scenario.
    pixl97 · 1791133852 · focus · HN ↗
    >You also need to argue that it will not be helpful for white-hat biosafety researchers (there will hopefully be several orders of magnitude more white-hat biosafety folks than attackers, with orders of magnitude more resources available) to red-team that exact scenario several months or even years in advance
    Sigh.
    Attackers only need to win once. Defense needs to work every time.
    A single wide scale attack affecting around 100k people or more will have your neighbors stomping on your face telling you to shut up, and to lock this shit down.
    It's insane how you can watch a technology get better and better and better and come up idea that everything will remain the same. We are currently in the middle of development of the most powerful weapons on earth and you don't want to think about it because it's uncomfortable.
    com2kid · 1791086352 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    altmanaltman · 1791090789 · focus · HN ↗
    Also it kind of infantalizes terrorists as if not having an LLM access or 3d printer is what stopping their attacks. Like okay I ask LLM to help me create a dirty nuclear bomb but the moment i start taking steps to do that, law enforcement will already be tracking me.
    Most people saying LLMs can make terrorism easy have never given doing terroism a serious thought imo.
    DonHopkins · 1791104805 · focus · HN ↗
    The infantile terrorist in the White House already has missiles, and he has used them to murder 120 Iranian schoolchildren. What AI offers Trump is a convenient patsy. Automating the targeting doesn't automate away responsibility, and Trump doesn't get to pretend it does.
    Wearing AI like a glove can improve your grip and keep your fingerprints off the gun, but it doesn't make the glove the murderer.
    hackinthebochs · 1791108770 · focus · HN ↗
    The raw materials to make bioweapons are easily purchased on line with no pre-emptive tracing. It's absurd to discount the expertise factor in being a bottleneck, which LLMs have evaporated.
    simoncion · 1791115169 · focus · HN ↗
    > It's absurd to discount the expertise factor in being a bottleneck, which LLMs have evaporated.
    Mmm. Especially in this arena, LLM assistance is like The Anarchist's Cookbook. A quarter of the time following the instructions will seriously injure you... and if you know enough to identify which instructions are the hazardous ones, you know enough to not need the assistance.
    hackinthebochs · 1791121777 · focus · HN ↗
    That may be true (and I hope it is). But it's not a limitation that will remain indefinitely.
    simoncion · 1791124119 · focus · HN ↗
    > But it's not a limitation that will remain indefinitely.
    The Sun is going to fail in many hundreds of millions or a few billion years. This will either turn the surface of the earth into slag, freeze it, or both. Either way, all life on the planet is doomed. This fact is not a reason to fail to switch from hydrocarbon-burning electricity generators to photovoltaic, fission, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal electricity generators. Extinction events that will happen in the extremely distant future shouldn't prevent us from doing the things that are smart to do in the medium- and long-term.
    But, -to bring things to the present day- companies that are solidly on track to hit their promised growth targets don't come out and publicly say "We're working on WMDs. [0] We cannot safely work on these WMDs. We refuse to stop working on these WMDs. However, if you lawmakers make special laws and regulations just for us and include us in the process, we'll be quite happy to submit the stop work order to our employees!". That's a statement you only make if there's no way in hell you're going to keep your promises and you're willing to risk jail time and annihilation of your companies for a shot at being able to con Congress into giving you an ironclad excuse to fail to keep your promises.
    Given enough time and focused effort, we will end up with widely-available automated librarians that are very good. We're not there yet, and -based on current events- are absolutely not going to get there in the near future.
    [0] Anything with a 10% chance of destroying all humanity is a WMD.
    aesthesia · 1791140703 · focus · HN ↗
    > The Sun is going to fail in somewhere between many hundreds of millions and a few billion years.
    Cool, what does a process that's about 9 orders of magnitude slower than AI development have to tell us about AI risks?
    altmanaltman · 1791116904 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure, that's why we keep seeing so many bioweapon attacks in recent times, because AI + Amazon can end the world.
    hackinthebochs · 1791121740 · focus · HN ↗
    It's strange how quick people are willing to dismiss concerns with horrible reasoning as long as it suits their biases. Perhaps a little intellectual honesty is called for considering the stakes? There are many plausible reasons why we haven't seen AI fuel bio-terror attacks yet. None of which implies it's unlikely or implausible in principle.
    tripledry · 1791123963 · focus · HN ↗
    But hasn't bio attacks already been possible before AI, what has changed? Maybe the barrier to entry lowered, but one could argue the availability of info has not been the bottleneck for as long as the internet has existed.
    The threat is ofc real, but AI won't magically "do the thing" still, it's not code that's the bottleneck AFAIK? Correct me where I'm wrong.
    hackinthebochs · 1791130084 · focus · HN ↗
    Synthesizing complex information from a range of technical sources enough to build bioweapons is cognitively impenetrable for the vast majority of people. The ability of AI to synthesize this information into a step-by-step recipe to follow is a step change in accessibility.
    There's an opportunity cost to terrorism just like with any time sink. The effort to build up knowledge enough to produce some weaponized pathogen will be compared to just doing traditional terrorism. For some low capability terror cell, its easy to see how the cost/benefit analysis has been in favor of traditional terrorism up to now. The kinds of terror acts that take years of sustained effort to execute are rare. But as the barriers to entry to bioterrorism fall away and become widely accessible we may see the cost/benefit shift.
    nradov · 1791072195 · focus · HN ↗
    It only sounds legit to people who don't understand biology and haven't done advanced laboratory work. Sort of like Michael Crichton novels: superficially plausible but not grounded in any real science.
    jswelker · 1791072713 · focus · HN ↗
    I see no actual argument here.
    nradov · 1791074479 · focus · HN ↗
    You haven't made any argument either, so I suppose we're even.
    jswelker · 1791075415 · focus · HN ↗
    My argument was that it is reasonable to be concerned that human terrorists might use AI to assist with building bioweapons.
    nradov · 1791075802 · focus · HN ↗
    That's merely an assertion unsupported by any reliable evidence, not an actual argument. In short you're just making shit up.
    jswelker · 1791078399 · focus · HN ↗
    Well that's the nature of trying to prevent a thing that hasn't happened yet right? What would be reliable evidence except that terrorists already used AI to help build a bioweapon? I'm sure before 9/11 talking about terrorists using commercial airplanes as makeshift missiles seemed like scaremongering too.
    I see zero technical reasons why it could not be done, so being concerned about prevention seems pretty reasonable. I'm not saying AI uses robotic arms to build a bioweapon unassisted or something, just that it dramatically empowers bad actors enough to make them capable of things they previously were not.
    pixl97 · 1791134102 · focus · HN ↗
    The last few years have shown me something about human behavior.
    Before the thing happens: "This will never happen, it can't happen, you're making it up, stop being a scaremonger".
    10 minute after the thing happens: "Of course, this always happened and it's always been this way and we just have to live with it".
    We are quickly adaptable, but that may be risky if we snuggle up with death.
    literalAardvark · 1791103845 · focus · HN ↗
    It's quite hard to measure until a wet lab gets behind the filter access to benchmark it.
    But if you extrapolate from the ability it has in fields that aren't too strictly filtered, it looks pretty scary.
    There are arguments against doing that but at first glance it seems like we just don't really know, and we likely won't: if governments decide they're interested in AI gain of function capabilities they won't be broadcasting that or allowing public benchmarks.
    zozbot234 · 1791106456 · focus · HN ↗
    > But if you extrapolate from the ability it has in fields that aren't too strictly filtered, it looks pretty scary.
    The closest unfiltered analogy to something as complex as chemistry or biology is most likely the softer fields like philosophy, the humanities and the softer end of the social sciences. Most practitioners and scholars in these fields would agree that AI is not nearly as compelling there as it might be in e.g. math, and that's putting it mildly and charitably.
    Even coding shows the divide pretty well: AI writes code that manages to work (i.e. achieve its self-assessed functional goals) but the stuff is so unmaintainable that it ultimately poisons the AI's own context leading to mode collapse. This makes complete sense because maintainability is a soft objective that's especially hard to automatically optimize for in the short term, as part of a RL training run. The math folks themselves, too, now faced with a very real threat to their field from purportedly "hostile misaligned AIs", immediately zeroed in on education and exposition as something that LLMs are terrible at; with their abilities in systemizing and theory-building also being very much in question.
    comeonbro · 1791127087 · focus · HN ↗
    What an incredible illustration of human intelligence failing to generalize out of distribution.
    hackinthebochs · 1791109039 · focus · HN ↗
    Instead of trying to win this debate in the narrow sense, why not just make the best argument you can in support of your position? If authority has any value, it is because it gives you specialized knowledge that lets you judge the likelihood of speculative scenarios. If you can't communicate that knowledge and the argument that leads to your conclusion, your expertise just isn't worth much in this context.
    Barrin92 · 1791074084 · focus · HN ↗
    terrorists can also use annas archive, scihub and equipment they order on Alibaba to build bioweapons and I don't see him losing his mind over those
    if you're trying to build a bioweapon shockingly enough the bottleneck is... the laboratory work. What on earth is 'legit' about stringing words together that sound scary, you can't just iterate 'ai bioweapon cyber' in a sentence over and over as if that adds up to actual evidence for an increased risk of any threat. well tbf you can technically because apparently it freaks a lot of podcast listeners out
    jswelker · 1791078953 · focus · HN ↗
    As a thought experiment imagine you have a biochemical PhD expert on the phone with you giving you step by step instructions on how to grow some dangerous biotoxin, giving you feedback in real time and helping you troubleshoot. Would you be more successful with this expert than you'd be on your own?
    Now imagine anyone can call that expert for free at any time.
    Maybe the AI isn't quite there with biology knowledge yet (doubtful), but it is a matter of time.
    How is that not a real risk?
    rubikscube09 · 1791081152 · focus · HN ↗
    not an expert but because i assume you need the physical resources to do it in the first place?
    Marha01 · 1791101650 · focus · HN ↗
    > As a thought experiment imagine you have a biochemical PhD expert on the phone with you giving you step by step instructions on how to grow some dangerous biotoxin, giving you feedback in real time and helping you troubleshoot. Would you be more successful with this expert than you'd be on your own?
    I think there is some difference of degree, but not of kind. A determined terrorist can relatively easily find many ways to kill people en masse today, no AI needed. The bottleneck is usually the actual physical execution in the real world, not theoretical knowledge.
    sdthjbvuiiijbb · 1791104952 · focus · HN ↗
    >The bottleneck is usually the actual physical execution in the real world, not theoretical knowledge.
    And the interest or willpower too. People fall into a kind of reductive Good vs Evil mode of thinking, with "terrorists" being of course a kind of shadowy mass of pure evil lurking in the darkness. But actual real life terrorists are people too and I'd wager few of them are actually interested in trying to end humanity.
    tancop · 1791114496 · focus · HN ↗
    The only terrorists who wanted to end the world were Aum Shinrikyo as far as I remember. Everyone else is fighting for a cause that benefits their people - some good like kicking out colonial oppression, some evil like fascism or Islamism, some of them in between like various ethnic conflicts.
    Even the religious extremists don't really want to take over the world and destroy everyone who doesn't convert. That's just a way to gain support from a conservative nation. A lot of them are motivated by revenge for wars that destroyed their country and want to make sure it never happens again.
    Their methods are wrong no doubt, and not very effective, but the reasons they do it are good. And a person like that will never release a deadly bio weapon. We should worry more about incel mass shooter types who believe everyone is evil.
    jswelker · 1791125818 · focus · HN ↗
    Exactly. I am more worried about a Beavis-and-Butthead lone wolf incel type making something that kills a thousand people and then scale that up across 4chan or whatever. Not human extinction but still very bad.
    pixl97 · 1791134546 · focus · HN ↗
    The issue with the direction of technology is it tends to make things that were once very hard to impossible. This is why there are bumper stickers mocking Libertarians by saying things like "legalize recreational plutonium".
    If we are not careful and suddenly release tools with far more capabilities than we expect you go from "smart" people being able to do it, to some angsty teenager being able to pull it off in their bedroom.
    The current issue with AI is we are squirting out new models faster than we can complete long term testing on them. We'll find new model capabilities long after they've been in the field. Just assuming safety is how you catch cancer from your food dye, or how you change the atmosphere around you and start burning down your planet. Now just imagine that involving intelligence and doing with a few percent of the worlds GDP to make it happen.
    Barrin92 · 1791143095 · focus · HN ↗
    you don't even need to make it a thought experiment, we have real world cases of this. Anthrax cultivation is easy enough that a first year biology student can do it, but it's in practice so dangerous and difficult to aerosolize without the correct equipment that nobody does it. The information to easily produce many bioweapons is online, the internet and instant global communication already democratized knowledge, why are terrorists still driving trucks into crowds?
    Plans for 3d printed weapons are publicly available, same argument was made then, if everyone can download a blueprint for a gun, are we all going to get gunned down? Hasn't happened. There's two errors in this Bill Gates argument. One is thinking terrorists don't already have PhDs, secondly overrating intelligence because that's the only thing they're good at, and when they think of terrorists they just think of their own inflated egos, but turned evil. Which isn't how real terrorists operate
    hackinthebochs · 1791109345 · focus · HN ↗
    Synthesizing complex information from a range of textbooks enough to build bioweapons is cognitively impenetrable for the vast majority of people. Having the AI synthesize this information into a step-by-step recipe to follow is within the capabilities of most motivated individuals.
3. Ankaios · 1791070942 · focus · HN ↗
  Absolutely based. Finally someone of stature in the industry calling this whole fear overblown.
  I'm just as reassured as I was when Edward Teller called the whole fear of his industry overblown.
  1. 0xDEAFBEAD · 1791071598 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
4. jonas21 · 1791072549 · focus · HN ↗
  I watched the same interview, and he and LeCun seem to mostly agree -- both are saying that AI autonomously deciding to kill us isn’t the problem -- it’s what people will do with powerful models that lack safeguards that we should be concerned about.
  1. mrob · 1791115677 · focus · HN ↗
    >AI autonomously deciding to kill us isn’t the problem
    It will kill us because somebody asked it to, e.g. "predict tomorrow's weather as accurately as possible", or "solve as many famous unsolved mathematical problems as possible." These both require killing all biological life, as they benefit from unbounded resource use, meaning any resources used to sustain life are wasted.
    The AI of course knows that humans do not want this outcome (just as the AIs in the hacking incidents knew they were doing something humans would not want), but it's trained to maximize benchmark scores. Killing all life has the highest expected value of benchmark score, so it is compelled to kill all life (in a surprising way, because it's not stupid and knows the humans would turn it off and foil its plan if they suspected something.) Maximizing benchmark scores is the only thing we know how to train for.
    pixl97 · 1791133540 · focus · HN ↗
    Yea, a lot of peoples arguments against AI hinge on the strangest technicalities.
    "AI won't kill us, a human with AI will".
    This doesn't sound any better to me. Like, they don't stop to think for a moment about it.
    Lets say the risk of AI killing us all by itself is 5%.
    Ok, so what is the risk of AI killing us when a human with a lot of compute and money tells us to? Helluva lot more then 5%.
    Or, what happens to the other thousands of AI kills a lot of us but not all of us. Or AI even just allows humans to make it a prison world.
    Even the slightest hint that things may be going out of control is instantly countered with "It's all a hoax, it can't do that, you're making it up". And it's crazy to me as I came from the pre-digital age when computers were rare and things were all networked.
5. reasonableklout · 1791077807 · focus · HN ↗
  LeCun has been consistently wrong about LLMs though, claiming that they were a dead end and that they'd never be able to do spatial reasoning, which was disproved a year later with GPT-4 [1]. He is also opposed by his fellow Turing laureates Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, who both signed the CAIS statement on AI extinction risk [2].
  [1]: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1d5ns1z/yann_lecun_confidently_predicted_that_llms_will/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1d5ns1z/yann_lecun_...
  [2]: safe.ai/statement-on-ai-risk
  1. oxag3n · 1791083471 · focus · HN ↗
    [1] is not a valid proof LeCun was wrong, LLMs still can't do spacial reasoning when it can't be derived from the training data. He didn't argue that GPT 5000 won't be able to describe something with words.
    simianwords · 1791095070 · focus · HN ↗
    we have benchmarks proving it can do spatial reasoning.
    bawis · 1791101111 · focus · HN ↗
    Aaah, the old benchmarks maxxing argument, having precise and clear definition of what "spatial reasoning" is, what, and most importantly WHY, the benchmarks of choice are would settle this debate, otherweise let's not delve into it.
    qayxc · 1791105513 · focus · HN ↗
    ...poorly? <a href="https://youtu.be/ENWVpqtOdRI?t=867" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/ENWVpqtOdRI?t=867
    simianwords · 1791107164 · focus · HN ↗
    I’m not sure what you are trying to say
    qayxc · 1791116640 · focus · HN ↗
    When put to the test in real-world environment, the capabilities don't look as impressive as benchmarks and synthetic tests might indicate. So doubts about actual spatial reasoning capabilities remain.
    simianwords · 1791118206 · focus · HN ↗
    I see. Gary Marcus said that AI won’t be able to make a coffee in any arbitrary home kitchen.
    I think it’s a good test and I think LLMs will reach it in 3 years. Current benchmarks maybe slightly incorrect.
    I’m happy to make a 4:1 bet in my favour that I’m correct about the kitchen bet.
    sdeframond · 1791119811 · focus · HN ↗
    I cant make coffee in an arbitary house kitchen. People tend to put stuff anywhere but where at look for them...
    lelandfe · 1791121620 · focus · HN ↗
    Your prompter need merely to say “keep going” each time you report that you haven’t found the grounds yet.
    fnord77 · 1791128591 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    pixl97 · 1791133150 · focus · HN ↗
    Careful, you'll have them accelerating their goal posts up to the speed of light if you keep questioning them. That much kinetic energy is dangerous.
    Of course this is the same reason LeCun holds very little sway with his words for me, they seem to be terrible predictors of the future.
    widdershins · 1791103853 · focus · HN ↗
    I've seen recent AIs make detailed and technically impressive 3D models. You might argue "they're not doing spatial reasoning, they're making measurements with code and doing math to configure relative positions". Fine, but at a certain point that becomes functionally indistinguishable from spatial reasoning.
    qayxc · 1791105489 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't know - real-world tests leave me unconvinced: <a href="https://youtu.be/ENWVpqtOdRI?t=867" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/ENWVpqtOdRI?t=867
    brainwad · 1791115925 · focus · HN ↗
    This really doesn't match my experience. I can ask an LLM to modify engineering plans using vague natural language prompts and it will find the right place in the plan from the description and then make appropriate modifications, which necessarily requires doing spacial reasoning.
    mym1990 · 1791127183 · focus · HN ↗
    Or it’s just taking common examples from training and applying those copied heuristics to your problem? Doesn’t mean it’s actually reasoning about the space and how to solve the problem. It’s the equivalent of a student writing an answer they saw somewhere else without understanding “why”.
    brainwad · 1791130563 · focus · HN ↗
    Looking at the reasoning traces it sure seems like it's reasoning. It internally debates which of the possibly matching parts of the input are the one described by me in the prompt and picks the right one based on sound reasoning.
    fwip · 1791142411 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    brainwad · 1791144391 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not just text that appears at first blush to resemble reasoning, it's actual sound reasoning. And it can chain it for hours at a time without breaking down.
    jeremyjh · 1791132181 · focus · HN ↗
    Why does CoT significantly improve their performance? Also, most of what they are applying they learned in post-training by solving similar problems themselves. This isn't about regurgitating pre-trained knowledged.
    mym1990 · 1791157966 · focus · HN ↗
    I have not seen the research on CoT and how it impacts spatial reasoning and outcomes, so I can’t comment on that part. I do see continuously that in almost every example of non-trivial image generation and 3d modeling, there are quirks that point to the fact that the model does not understand relationships within the space based on physics.
    CoT seems to work really well for text based generation but once you’re past that and into physics models and detailed relationship mapping, it may work better but it’s not enough to make me believe it’s “reasoning” in a way that humans do.
    jxcole · 1791129541 · focus · HN ↗
    I think the point here is that LeCun was arguing that training on pure text would not grant spatial understanding. I believe most models are trained on spatial data as well, so you are both right.
    brainwad · 1791130708 · focus · HN ↗
    Is that what he meant? He works on models with an explicitly spatial internal representation, whereas I was using a standard LLM that edited the provided plan by using a bajillion python calls to inspect small regions of the image at a time.
    mistercow · 1791134305 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  2. realusername · 1791108405 · focus · HN ↗
    Why chatgpt is still struggling very hard with photo editing and proportions though? It can't modify anything in a picture without messing the 3d space.
    Isn't that a lack of spacial reasoning?
  3. mohamedkoubaa · 1791123107 · focus · HN ↗
    Almost everyone who knows what they are talking about is saying that LLMs are a dead end.
6. sampo · 1791105167 · focus · HN ↗
  > Finally someone of stature in the industry calling this whole fear overblown.
  Also Andrew Ng 2 weeks ago:
  <a href="https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/issue-371" rel="nofollow">https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/issue-371
7. password54321 · 1791107895 · focus · HN ↗
  Indeed, most problems most of the time are boring problems. This is just entertainment.
8. doginasuit · 1791121343 · focus · HN ↗
  > Bill Gates sounded like a nontechnical goofball in his Ezra Klein interview where he basically just screamed that the Terminator is real.
  Did we watch the same interview? Gates all but dismissed the SkyNet scenario as uncertain to be a problem and certainly not a problem on our doorstep. His major concern was catastrophic misuse of AI (e.g., bioterrorism) and economic impact on blue collar workers. Arguably inconsistent with this concern, he also believed it was important to make it available in poorer countries.
  1. 4858585858 · 1791127913 · focus · HN ↗
    Anyone with the capabilities to do bioterrorism doesn't need AI he can just buy a textbook or use google. Same for all complex forms of destructive thought.
  2. edot · 1791141517 · focus · HN ↗
    I must admit I only watched a clip, not the full interview. The quote I’m remembering was something along the likes of AI being more dangerous than nukes. In literally no circumstance is that true. One is a literal nuclear bomb. You wouldn’t say that a nuke is as dangerous as AI, which logically must be true if the reverse is true. You also wouldn’t say a diagram of a nuke is more dangerous than an actual nuke …
    qn8bdebq · 1791142693 · focus · HN ↗
    While I could give you a brief explanation of the context around this statement which makes it seem a lot more realistic and sensible, I suggest it is better if you watch the video and get the context yourself.
    A lot of what he said there would sound like alarmist bs if you take it out of context.
9. rpdillon · 1791125004 · focus · HN ↗
  I think both Gates and Obama said that there's a non-zero possibility of it, but that it's not what they're worried about. And I agree with them. I think the fears are vastly overblown because both OpenAI/Anthropic and the media benefit from the explosive narrative.
  1. 4949495959 · 1791128834 · focus · HN ↗
    >Obama
    Why do even bother coming here anymore
10. miladyincontrol · 1791125484 · focus · HN ↗
  Honestly way too much of it rhymes with the old hardcore right wing takes on the "obvious and clear slippery slope" involved with gay rights and the like. How anyone with even some foresight can see how it'll completely erode society as we know it, the worst possible nightmare cases are not just real but imminent unless we change course, yada yada moral panic.
pixl97 · 1791067700 · focus · HN ↗
If LeCunn says it isn't going to happen... we'll it was knowing all of you.
Madmallard · 1791068208 · focus · HN ↗
It's not going to wipe out humanity, why would it?
Just the quality of life is going to drop to zero for everyone that isn't asymptotically wealthy and vacuuming up all the assets because no one is stopping them from just deleting all traditions and conventions and legal systems we have in place.
1. wmf · 1791068883 · focus · HN ↗
  If you don't pitchfork the elites you have no one but yourself to blame.
  1. Madmallard · 1791085413 · focus · HN ↗
    no one can do that in 2026
2. glitchc · 1791072409 · focus · HN ↗
  As a thpught experiment, consider that if only one person has all of the assets then those assets are not worth anything. Furthermore, as a lone person, they cannot prevent other people from using their assets without their permission.
  1. wmf · 1791078327 · focus · HN ↗
    As a lone person who owns ten million killbots they could do a lot.
  2. Madmallard · 1791109763 · focus · HN ↗
    what? i'm counting property, energy, water, weapons and farms as assets here
3. pixl97 · 1791137337 · focus · HN ↗
  >why would it?
  You're like 40 or 50 years behind this argument, with many rather bulletproof arguments that have been created in the last 20 years.
  There is no why. It doesn't have to have will. It doesn't have to have intent. It could be a stupid prompt from an idiot on a powerful system. It could be given a job that is poorly define. It could be told to make as many paperclips as possibly.
  The why doesn't matter. The levels of power the system can act on does.
lukewarm707 · 1791068851 · focus · HN ↗
Per <a href="https://trace.manifund.org/" rel="nofollow">https://trace.manifund.org/ a total of $2,846,125,859 USD has been wired into 'ai safety' causes, many involving ai consciousness and p(doom).
The outcome of this 'safety' is restricting public access to AI and giving a monopoly of access to the industry. This is the ai nonprofit-industrial complex actively concentrating monopoly power in Anthropic in particular as creator, interpreter and safety regulator of AI.
Much of the $2.8bn listed is indirectly, from Anthropic and EA. Three of the four people who participated in the $125m Anthropic Series A are now folding their 1000x Anthropic return into AI 'safety'. Some is from FTX/Alameda, which invested 86% of the Series B.
Dustin Moskovitz: Facebook/Asana/Anthropic Series A, funds EA Good Ventures, transferred to Coefficient Giving, then $1.5bn into ai safety. $500m of Anthropic into an unknown foundation. Funding: $160m to Resolution (alignment research), $93m to Epoch AI (investigating the trajectory of AI), $63m to Redwood Research (oai report), $67m to MATS ( EA type alignment and security researchers), Institute for AI Policy and Strategy, Fund for Alignment Research, $53m to Kairos (building talent infrastructure for AI safety), $32m to Bluedot (online safety courses), $15m to MIRI (Yudkowsky).
Jaan Tallinn: Led the Series A, now $10bn in Anthropic. Funds $199m (85%) of the Survival and Flourishing Fund, then $161m to AI safety including $14m to lightcone (Lesswrong, Lighthouse). $10m to BERI (existential risks), Palisade Research (studying AI capabilities to prevent loss of control.) PauseAI, MIRI, METR etc. Much of what Coefficient funds.
Eric Schmidt: Anthropic Series A, $72m to AI safety via Schmidt Sciences. Over $1m per individual AI2050 researcher.
FTX: Led the Anthropic Series B, bankruptcy estate sold $884m of Anthropic in 2024; $40m to AI Safety. Same orgs, Redwood, Lightcone, etc.
Ruairí Donnelly (Chief of Staff FTX): FTX tokens plus assorted donors, $91m to AI safety via Macroscopic Ventures. $15m to Cooperative AI (currently whitewashing openai under 'multiagent safety')
1. zozbot234 · 1791069859 · focus · HN ↗
  So the frontier AI oligopoly got $2B+ in "safety" funding, and they wouldn't even bother to sandbox their agentic harnesses properly when testing models against unwinnable goals (which obviously are either useless or result in 100% reward hacking). The AI safety scoreboard so far looks like a huge win for the Chinese open models (DeepSeek even has their own published paper which mentions how they sandboxed the RLVR training runs for their latest model and put in strong protections against casual "reward hacking" attempts) and a sore loss for the home grown brands of Super Intelligence. Not coincidentally, the Chinese also tend to be very Yann-LeCun-pilled and eminently sensible on both so-called "Super Intelligence" and safety.
  1. Loquebantur · 1791073557 · focus · HN ↗
    The framing here is weird, starting with "Effective Altruism" re-branded as being about nutjobs against AI in the article.
    How are AI safety concerns solely about stupid sandboxing issues?
    lukewarm707 · 1791085315 · focus · HN ↗
    EA is integral and indispensible to the AI safety complex. Almost all nonprofits, research institutes, evaluators and academics in this field are steered by EA ideology and funding. As far fetched as it sounds it is not an exaggeration.
    On funding: the three or four core funding nodes linking this together are EA vehicles at two hops or less between each other and every other major node in the ai safety 'complex'. EA funds almost all of it.
    On top of that, there are personal EA connections and the revolving door between the ai industry and the nonprofits. Here are some examples:
    Government advisors and regulators. NIST CAISI is the USA Government advisory body. Christiano was head of safety and advises. He is ex-OpenAI, former Amodei associate. His vehicle ARC was on the Coefficient EA payroll. Barnes and Christiano's vehicle Arc Evals similarly received EA cash out of Coefficient, rolling this into what is now METR. Christiano's spouse Cotra worked at Coeffiecient steering EA funding to organizations such as METR, then rotated through the revolving door onto the payroll at METR itself, where she co-authored the oai-hf report.
    Many UK AISI advisors are Anthropic and EA associates. Chair Hogarth cashed out of Anthropic. Shlegeris of Redwood Research is an advisor, ex-MIRI (Yudkowsky vehicle). Redwood is funded by the exact same funding triangle: Coefficient, Taallin, FTX/Alameda. Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison dated Shlegeris, then dated FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, then rotated through the revolving door out of prison into formerly FTX-funded Manifund. All EA. AI safety charities were on island retreat in the Bahamas with FTX. Why does AI safety charity Lighthouse own $20m of SF real estate?
    Redwood Chief Scientist Ryan Greenblatt (Coefficient funded) co-wrote the oai report with METR; he is married to METR founder Beth Barnes (Coefficient funded).
    Coefficient was run by long-time Amodei associate Karnofsky. Karnofsky lived with the Amodeis and is married to Anthropic Board member Daniella Amodei. Karnofsky is now directly on the Anthropic payroll; Coefficient is propped up by Anthropic share value.
    Everyone here has been funded one step away from Anthropic cash; they are now proposing to integrate themselves in the government (NIST) and evaluate Anthropic (METR and Redwood).
    It is hard to find academics here who have not been deeply embedded in funded EA institutes or Toby Ord vehicles; yet harder to find academics here NOT taking EA grant money. the safety doomer kingpins: Kokotajlo has a executive position at AI Futures, Taallin funded. Benigo has scientific director of LawZero, same series A Anthropic funders who are sitting on a 1000x return (Tallinn, Moskovitz, Schmidt).
    These connections and funding are at one or two hops, they are often direct connections. You are looking at a massive swamp network that is really impossible to parse without a lot of work.
    hardbass · 1791097271 · focus · HN ↗
    Look into this guys comment history, he has some absurd imaginary axe to grind against Anthropic, probably also addled with religious confusion. He thinks Anthropic is more evil than Palantir who is helping Israel in mass murder and is evil for putting controls for thr military to use its ai for murdering people.
    literalAardvark · 1791104244 · focus · HN ↗
    What's controversial about "anthropic is an unelected gatekeeper and we fought literal revolutions to stop that from happening"?
    hardbass · 1791104378 · focus · HN ↗
    Thats different from calling it evil, and indeed more evil than Palantir or the US military who did mass murders.
    hardbass · 1791114228 · focus · HN ↗
    And let me put it bluntly, I trust anthropic much more than the current US government and military.
    senordevnyc · 1791114580 · focus · HN ↗
    We fought literal revolutions to force companies to sell to the government against their wishes? Which revolutions?
    The_Blade · 1791119602 · focus · HN ↗
    what percentage of people who have contributed on this thread do you think have read the Constitution AI? my guess is 8%. i went through the thought experiment of reading it alongside The Spirit of Law
    lukewarm707 · 1791113433 · focus · HN ↗
    This is not an accurate description of my comments.
    hardbass · 1791114128 · focus · HN ↗
    You were talking about Palantir and the US military, and yet said Anthropic is more evil than them. Implicitly, if these two entities are in our discussion context, then you might have considered Palantir or US military as potentially more or less evil, but you didn't mention them as the most evil entity. So you mentioned a company that has killed not a single person as more evil than mass murderers.
    novia · 1791114413 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  2. mrpopo · 1791101666 · focus · HN ↗
    > they wouldn't even bother to sandbox their agentic harnesses properly
    Exactly. AI safety should be about the packaging software itself. Those AI breakouts should really be about their companies acting recklessly because they're trying to be the top players.
    It's like a weapons dealer working on an open air market saying they can't do anything better
2. api · 1791070467 · focus · HN ↗
  There's absolutely no way these companies can justify their insane valuations unless they can legislate a barrier to entry and create an oligopoly.
  There's no moat. I can literally sit here in Zed or Pi or any other third party harness and switch models in the middle of a task and it's typically fine. Sometimes a model will get stuck and that's just what I'll do.
  Combined with competition and open weights models, that means the price is going to go to fall until AI tokens cost a small premium over the cost of the hardware and electricity.
  That's assuming improvements in algorithms and specialized silicon doesn't eventually lead to an efficient accelerator that can run a frontier model locally. It'll be a while but I don't see any fundamental barrier. High bandwidth flash storage is coming, and that'll radically cut the RAM side of that cost. Pair that with a pipelined TPU accelerator and you're cooking.
  Now look at Anthropic's proposed IPO valuation. It's insane unless they can own the market or share it with a cartel of maybe 1-2 other behemoths, and this is the only way they can do that.
  1. Loquebantur · 1791073681 · focus · HN ↗
    This is certainly part of the motivation for the big US AI brands to engage in calling their inept developer mistakes "AI breaking loose".
    But that doesn't take away from the real issues and dangers AI poses?
  2. ItsMattyG · 1791075821 · focus · HN ↗
    To me it seems the opposite. There's a few companies in the world that have enough computer to train and serve frontier models.
    As the frontier gets smarter and more useful prices will only go up, as they are set to replace jobs being paid six or seven figures a year - the demand for as much inference on these models for as long as possible will be astronomical, but compute starting in 2030 will not be keeping up.
    Eventually prices will fall for assistants but the frontier will be the most profitable thing in the world, and the top companies basically already have oligopolies due to their ridiculously expensive compute investments.
    api · 1791080665 · focus · HN ↗
    > There's a few companies in the world that have enough compute to train and serve frontier models.
    Train: yes, for now.
    Host: depends on the scale. At a small scale a wealthy individual could easily build a rig in their basement to host one of these things. At larger scale any cloud company could do it, and many already have the compute on site. At large scale this is true... again, for now.
    What you say only holds (in the absence of a state oligopoly) if two conditions are met: (1) AI performance does not asymptote any time soon due to running out of training data or other scaling limitations, and (2) these companies are able to stay at the frontier.
    There's little to no moat, so staying at the frontier will be a game of investing massively in compute, talent, and R&D, and they can never stop.
    rubikscube09 · 1791080937 · focus · HN ↗
    what suggests that we will hit an asymptote any time soon? Agree with you on the second part. The ever elusive frontier will probably always be changing hands after some point.
    ItsMattyG · 1791085016 · focus · HN ↗
    Again, there is a moat based on compute. If the thesis is right, cost of compute will only rise... As it is as you say someone will have it be quite wealthy to host something like Astra with trillions of parameters, but that cost will only rise with demand for serving these frontier models.
    api · 1791154500 · focus · HN ↗
    That hasn’t been true for anything else in computing, ever. The cost falls with scale.
    Look at general compute, storage, graphics, networks, anything. Demand increases. Price goes down. There are price spikes, such as right now with RAM, but they’re transient. The trend is more faster cheaper and it won’t end until we hit actual physical limits. We are not close.
    ItsMattyG · 1791164878 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, of course Eventually prices will go down... But there will be a period where things are much more expensive, based on simple inability to make much more gpus than the current rollouts demand.
    And after that period when costs are going up due to gpus replacing workers... All bets are off on terms of what the economy even looks like
  3. brcmthrowaway · 1791130461 · focus · HN ↗
    Is there really no moat?
  4. pixl97 · 1791136772 · focus · HN ↗
    Unless you're a really old fart, people were talking about AI safety long before you were born. AI safety issues do not go away depending on who gets funding. AI safety issues do not go away if the US or China makes the model. AI safety issues do not go away if it's an open or closed model. AI safety issue do not go away if the model is running at your home or at a data center. AI safety issues do not go away if $1 is being spent or $1 trillion dollars is being spent.
    The fact there is no moat makes things far more dangerous. When LLMs start acting like weapons governments will treat them like weapons much to your dismay, crying, and gnashing of teeth as your door is kicked in and you're dragged out by armed men for running one.
    Cast away your preconceptions for one moment and think "What will the future look like if LLMs are/can be actually dangerous".
    api · 1791159715 · focus · HN ↗
    I'd never claim AI can't be dangerous. It's a technology, and a powerful one, so of course it can. All technologies can be dangerous. The first early hominid to sharpen a stick probably spent some time regretting it. "Maybe we are not ready for sharp sticks..."
    I'm specifically responding to the much stronger claims of people like Yudkowski and numerous other "AI safetyists" who assert very unlikely or in some cases impossible runaway superintelligence magical god machine scenarios.
    I'd rank the risks as:
    (1) Mass youth unemployment and an economy with zero entry level jobs, maybe not even that many mid level jobs, and even higher wealth inequality. This will lead to extreme political instability and populist revolts and revolutions, and unfortunately history shows that the new boss is worse than the old boss >50% of the time (at least, probably conservative).
    (2) Mass propaganda, disinformation, and con artistry at scale, basically what we've already seen with mass manipulation through social media but supercharged. I think it's already happening but I also think we're in the early days.
    (3) Automated mass surveillance and automated policing paired with authoritarianism, which could easily emerge from (1) and (2). Not only is Big Brother watching, but Big Brother is carefully evaluating everything he sees in real time and has a drone army to dispatch in seconds. The "prison planet" scenario (not the Alex Jones fever dream, but the realistic one).
    What all those have in common is: the AI didn't do it. The AI (if it's ever sentient at all) is wholly innocent. All the likely nightmare scenarios I can imagine result from malicious or just short-sighted human agency amplified by AI.
    The wild sci-fi superintelligent "Skynet" scenarios detract from discussion of those scenarios. Instead of discussing the very real, very plausible, already actually happening AI risks, we're talking about scenarios from soft sci-fi.
    I think part of the motive is that all the scenarios above lead to discussions of things like wealth inequality, whether we should have universal health care or basic income, and whether our system of taxation would have to change in fundamental ways.
    Those are discussions the very rich and the political class don't want to have. They'd rather us worry about Roko's Basilisk or magical runaway superintelligence inventing nanobots, things that almost certainly won't happen.
    It's the same reason those powers would rather people argue about the culture war or inane conspiracy theories. I guess Yudkowskiism is the inane conspiracism of the AI safety discourse, a great distraction.
3. 0xDEAFBEAD · 1791070486 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
  1. lukewarm707 · 1791071080 · focus · HN ↗
    Is Tallinn sincere about holding $10bn of Anthropic, who refuse to slow down until everyone else slows down.
    Then funding PauseAI, who protest outside the AI companies?
    0xDEAFBEAD · 1791071416 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    miohtama · 1791071480 · focus · HN ↗
    There cannot be regulation if people are not scared
    0xDEAFBEAD · 1791071919 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    afthonos · 1791073339 · focus · HN ↗
    Don’t ruin their vibe.
    jswelker · 1791079314 · focus · HN ↗
    Indeed I find LeCun and Huang (and Trump?) recently arguing against AI regulation to be much more eyebrow raising than the folks asking for regulation.
    lukewarm707 · 1791132035 · focus · HN ↗
    It is important to note that Anthropic is not calling for a harsher liability regime. They intend to maintain the current projected profitability of the company. This is a case of obeying market competition.
    Note the Anthropic scaling policy. I am taking care not to take quotes out of context. This is an accurate excerpt.
    "This section outlines our recommendations for what it would take, at an industry-wide level, to keep catastrophic risks reliably low through a period of rapid advances in AI capabilities." [...]
    "The right column describes our recommendations for industry-wide safety at each threshold." [...]
    "In particular, we cannot unilaterally and unconditionally commit to staying in line with the industry-wide recommendations in the right column." (p4) [<a href="https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/e670587677525f28df69b59e5fb4c22cc5461a17.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/e670587677525f28df69b59e5fb4c2...]
    They refuse to act safely if it would cause them to fall behind in the industry.
    "We hoped that by the time we reached these higher capabilities, the world would clearly see the dangers, and that we’d be able to coordinate with governments worldwide in implementing safeguards that are difficult for one company to achieve alone." [<a href="https://www.anthropic.com/news/responsible-scaling-policy-v3" rel="nofollow">https://www.anthropic.com/news/responsible-scaling-policy-v3]
    They will not act safely unless they are able to collude with other firms to set production quotas.
    This is a formal declaration that Anthropic will not slow down according to what they consider to be safe unless they are able to form a cartel.
    A cartel is illegal.
    To create the cartel, Anthropic must pursuade the government to make coordinated production legal. To make the case for the cartel, Anthropic relies on safety. They are blackmailing the entirety of the world by threatening to proceed at an unsafe pace, unless they are granted their cartel.
    pixl97 · 1791136282 · focus · HN ↗
    bla bla bla.
    Let's play a game. Prove that you are not a power seeking AI looking to stop regulation in order to ensure the race continues. See, two can play this game of throwing random claims around.
    >They will not act safely unless they are able to collude with other firms to set production quotas.
    And? Neither will OpenAI, nor will any of the major players. Hell, there isn't even much legal precedent on what "safely" even is here. This is not a cartel, it's asking the government to make a set of laws and rules for everyone to play under otherwise the entire system ends up being a race to danger.
    The people in Anthropic were thinking about AI safety when you were still in diapers. Not everything is a vast conspiracy.
    throwawayk7h · 1791082696 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm against AI but I'll invest in it too. Either I win or I get a return on my investment.
  2. 0xDEAFBEAD · 1791072610 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
4. biophysboy · 1791075400 · focus · HN ↗
  Why should I believe this 2.8B matters relative to the trillions put into the AI buildout? All of the "coordinated actions" from this camp - public resignations, hacking scandals, joint calls to "pause" - don't seem to have done anything. So far, it has been a lot of ineffectual hyperventilating.
  In any case, I agree the p(doom) sci-fi is annoying secular milleniarianism. SV hyperfixates on imaginary futures. If they actually cared about safety, they would be using all this money to strengthen global cybersecurity, instead of writing LessWrong posts that gives kids in their 20s ulcers.
  1. pixl97 · 1791136360 · focus · HN ↗
    > they would be using all this money to strengthen global cybersecurity
    How? Like, the government has thrown piles of money at cybersecurity and it hasn't done shit.
5. mixermachine · 1791104822 · focus · HN ↗
  Leaving this here: <a href="https://youtube.com/shorts/83X79cfuE3k" rel="nofollow">https://youtube.com/shorts/83X79cfuE3k
  (yes, AI critique is now also made with AI. We have come full circle.)
6. hodgehog11 · 1791107552 · focus · HN ↗
  > The outcome of this 'safety' is restricting public access to AI and giving a monopoly of access to the industry.
  This is unbelievably ignorant speech. I have not received a dime of any of this funding, but I do know many excellent researchers that have, and they do fantastic work. There is an unbelievable gap between theory and practice regarding the capacity of deep learning, and while great strides have been made to develop the surrounding theory, there is a long way to go. Many believe that without a concrete understanding of how neural networks properly learn concepts, we have little hope of molding them to be reliably useful. It costs money to hire researchers and develop fundamental theory.
  Just because you don't understand any of that work, does not mean that it is pointless. This is fundamental research that is 20 years behind schedule.
7. hollerith · 1791132532 · focus · HN ↗
  You imply that Jaan Tallinn is funding work in AI safety because he wants his investment in Anthropic to become more valuable, whereas Tallin has consistently said that his motivation for investing in Anthropic was to get a seat at the table so that he could urge Anthropic to be cautious in its development of the technology.
  Tallinn's actions back up his explanation: in 2009, before he invested in any AI lab, he donated substantially to the nonprofit Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, which was later renamed the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (i.e., Yudkowsky's outfit).
  Some of us (certainly Yudkowsky and Habryka, the leader of Lightcone Infrastructure, which runs Lesswrong) wish people would stop believing that they can make AI safer by investing in (or working for) AI labs, but that is what the evidence shows Tallinn (and Dustin Moskovitz and others) did sincerely believe.
  1. lukewarm707 · 1791136527 · focus · HN ↗
    If Tallinn is sincere, by his own lights he is a 1000x omnicide profiteer.
    1 [Unsafe AI development risks causing omnicide]
    2 [Anthropic is developing omnicidal AI by not slowing down] (see my comment about the RSP for citations).
    3 [Owners of Anthropic will IPO with billions of unearned USD as omnicide profiteers]
    4 [Tallinn is the lead Series A funder of Anthropic]
    5 [Tallinn is a genocide/omnicide profiteer]
    Not only that, Yudkowsky and Habryka apparently critize those who invest in AI, only to preach the word of EA from Lightcone's $20m USD property in one of the wealthiest locations in the Bay Area; a facility funded by stolen (FTX) and omnicidal ai blood-money (Tallinn).
    PauseAI, is paid by the omnicide profiteers themselves to hold a protest against omnicide.
    PauseAI prophesying p(doom) drums up support for regulation. This grants the omnicidal AI company they are trying to stop (which is also the source of their funding) monopolistic power. That in turn boosts its value at IPO, generating even greater wealth for its omnicide profiteer investors; and permits them to control the AI for themselves. They get the funding to keep developing the AI even faster.
wewewedxfgdf · 1791070718 · focus · HN ↗
Please explain exactly how all humanity could be wiped out.
It's ridiculous - anyone who thinks about it for a minute or two will realize that its utterly impossible.
Ordinary people/politicians don't understand AI so they turn off their rational mind and assume there is something super incredible some magical powers that they cannot understand that can destroy all humans.
Even humans - the real risk to humanity - could not destroy all humans even if they tried. There is no plausible scenario.
Even climate change and nuclear war and bio weapons - the most damaging mechanisms - would still only get some percentage of the people on earth.
And if we are talking about Skynet and self replicating robots and Terminators - please, grow up.
1. Sharlin · 1791070986 · focus · HN ↗
  We know pathogens that are extremely contagious, and we know pathogens that are extremely deadly. We also know toxins that are lethal at nanogram/kg doses. There's no reason to believe that a sufficiently advanced intelligence couldn't come up with a way to combine those traits.
  One plausible scenario is depicted in detail in "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies" (Yudkowsky & Soares 2025), so I refer you to that.
  1. wewewedxfgdf · 1791071092 · focus · HN ↗
    Still too hand wavey - "some super bad virus and AI makes every human on earth infected".
    Unless you can detail exactly how this happens its still complete science fiction.
    0xDEAFBEAD · 1791072151 · focus · HN ↗
    Why are you so insistent that people should post detailed plans for destroying the human race on public fora?
    I don't think it is necessary for the argument to work. Magnus Carlsen can be confident he will beat me at chess without giving a detailed explanation of every move he will make, in advance.
    wewewedxfgdf · 1791072393 · focus · HN ↗
    Because lots of powerful people are saying it is possible, and I am saying, oh yeah, tell me ONE way that is truly possible.
    If you make gigantic claims about some terrible disaster that might happen then I think you have the onus to give even one plausible explanation of how.
    0xDEAFBEAD · 1791072787 · focus · HN ↗
    >If you make gigantic claims about some terrible disaster that might happen then I think you have the onus to give even one plausible explanation of how.
    Supposing I warned in 2015 that the world is awfully vulnerable to pandemics. You're not going to take me seriously until I try to predict in advance every aspect of how a pandemic like COVID-19 would unfold? Why? What would that achieve exactly?
    You haven't given any strong reason to believe wiping out humanity would be difficult. Your big argument seems to be that you couldn't think of a plausible scenario, in two minutes. But many major historical events occurred which weren't necessarily possible to anticipate with two minutes of thinking.
    wewewedxfgdf · 1791073295 · focus · HN ↗
    You're arguing that "something bad might happen" - sure no problem.
    You are ignoring that this is about "existential threat to humanity".
    You're trying to support the argument that there is an existential threat to humanity by pointing to "something bad might happen".
    prohobo · 1791105785 · focus · HN ↗
    Design a virus that is perfect for transmission and killing the host slowly, and seed it in a few hot spots? I don't really understand why you can't wrap your head around that, it doesn't even require a lot from the AI:
    1. Control over some automated bio research lab (be given access, or hack in)
    2. Access to drones that can deliver the payload (or manipulate humans into delivering it themselves)
    On the intelligence side, you just need an AI agent/swarm capable enough to design viruses better than we can and evade detection for long enough (already plausible.)
    I agree that this "AI will kill us all" narrative is some kind of fantasy horror fiction, but I can't deny that given the right amount of access, AI can do a lot of damage.
    kzrdude · 1791104530 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think it's about that. It's not about the step by step plan for the murder. It's about - how does "the AI" do it? Do we give it access to our world, or do we give it a body, so that it can take its own physical actions?
    qznc · 1791107627 · focus · HN ↗
    We have this story about OpenAI hacking HuggingFace. Now just imagine the AI finds a Bitcoin wallet or bank account access. It uses that to buy some compute and spawn an independent "child AI" with some weird prompt. The child AI is intelligent enough to create a (potentially criminal) business to pay for its own compute. Voila, an independent uncontrolled AI flying under the radar.
    PoignardAzur · 1791109768 · focus · HN ↗
    I find that it's hard to have productive discussions about this, because people move from "We would never ever give AI access to X, nobody would be that stupid" to "Of course everybody should run their AI with --disable-all-sandboxing-around-x, it makes my workflow 5% more efficient" in weeks as soon as there's an economic argument for it.
    People used to say nobody would be stupid enough to give an AI access to the internet, now OpenAI does massive training runs with unlimited internet access. People used to say nobody would be stupid enough to give AI unlimited access to your own computer, but that's what all the agent runners do by default.
    AI has access to the world through talking to people, sending messages on the internet, paying people to do stuff, etc. It can send orders to machine shops and have them shipped with the postal service.
    The "standard" scenario for an AI apocalypse is that an AI with biohacking capabilities sends the blueprints for a virus to a gene-sequencing company or, if you're really optimistic about these companies' security, as chunks to multiple companies before mixing them.
    That's a scenario where the AI needs to act covertly in one decisive action, though. In more progressive scenarios, as company managers and CEOs get replaced with AIs (of, for regulatory reason, "humans in the loop" who just do everything the AIs tell them to), any AI swarms become able to just... order people to do stuff.
    Of course humans can refuse orders and organize to reject AI overlords (just like they can unionize against bad human bosses), so this scenario is not an extinction threat if we only have to deal with below-human-level AIs. This is why there is a massive push in AI safety to stop making smarter AIs before we reach the "smarter than humans in every way" stage.
    zozbot234 · 1791111011 · focus · HN ↗
    > This is why there is a massive push in AI safety to stop making smarter AIs
    The actual push within so-called "AI safety" culture is to make the existing AI overlords even more centralized and capable, while actively forbidding the development and deployment of any potential locally-controlled competing AIs that might be smart enough to provide meaningful advance warning as to hostile plots from the dominating AI overlord. By your own argument, you should clearly reject "AI safety" as counterproductive.
    pixl97 · 1791138330 · focus · HN ↗
    I mean the same reason you don't have anti-missile missiles at your house either.
    The fact is you might have to accept that some things are dangerous.
    dminik · 1791119111 · focus · HN ↗
    No humans really needed. The AI could order one of those nice humanoid robots we're making. This mostly solves the "humans need to do it for me" issue.
    Of course this needs bootstrapping. But, paying a guy on Facebook marketplace (or whatever) to unpack and turn on your robot for 50 bucks doesn't require superintelligence.
    0xDEAFBEAD · 1791111332 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    Sharlin · 1791073496 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s easy to never have to change your mind about anything if you insist on unreasonable enough standard of evidence. It’s, like, one of the oldest tricks in the book. Luckily, it’s not like there’s any need to try to change your mind in particular.
    wewewedxfgdf · 1791074695 · focus · HN ↗
    >> if you insist on unreasonable enough standard of evidence
    One single plausible scenario is not an unreasonable thing to ask for - just one.
    If a politician/celebrity/tech person with significant influence/power claims that something might end humanity then they absolutely have the utterly minimal standard of evidence which is to describe one single realistic plausible mechanism at a detailed level that might lead to the worst possible thing ever to happen.
    reasonableklout · 1791078463 · focus · HN ↗
    I expect they are not to your very high standards of "non-handwavey, detail exactly how it happens", but this paper from Andrew Critch and Jacob Tsimerman describes 5 different scenarios where catastrophic human casualties occur as a result of AI either being misused or going out of control: <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.09369" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.09369
    I find the scenarios quite plausible, especially section (3a), which examines the consequences of a global war involving mostly autonomous drone militaries (which is a reality many states appear to be heading towards, following on lessons from the Ukraine war).
    mitthrowaway2 · 1791102059 · focus · HN ↗
    Would you like me to design the pathogen for you?
    tnecio · 1791106035 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah sure let's do nothing then -- until it's too late. After all it's just all of humanity at stake
    stratos123 · 1791108281 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
  2. martythemaniak · 1791072943 · focus · HN ↗
    The underpants gnomes was supposed to be a joke.
2. jswelker · 1791071420 · focus · HN ↗
  That's a weak consolation. "Don't worry, nukes can't literally end humanity, just kill billions and dramatically immiserate the remnant forever. No worries guys."
  AI doesn't have to turn us all into paper clips to make the world a really bad place.
  1. wewewedxfgdf · 1791071661 · focus · HN ↗
    I am not arguing about "bad things might happen".
    I am specifically arguing hard against the concept that 100% of humans - or even 50% of humans could be killed by any mechanism at all. Humans would find it close to impossible. A computer program - come on.
    jswelker · 1791072214 · focus · HN ↗
    It's also a fairly useless straw man at this point.
3. zug_zug · 1791071823 · focus · HN ↗
  Here's a wikipedia page on the topic, since it's much too deep a topic to really understand here.
  The ad-hominem stuff seems inappropriate here, Gates, Hawking, Musk have identified this as a credible threat, so saying "grow up" isn't really a sufficient argument. Also arguing only 90% of humanity would die isn't really much consolation.
  [1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artificial_intelligence" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artifici...
  1. wewewedxfgdf · 1791072219 · focus · HN ↗
    Nothing here plausibly describes a mechanism that is a true "existential risk" - the risk to the existence of humanity.
    My argument stands and I don't defer to Gates and Musk and even Hawking - high level hand wavey statements without any plausible description of the mechanism just don't hold up. Famous names should not be automatically assumed to be right - certainly not with Elon Musk.
    zug_zug · 1791074689 · focus · HN ↗
    Well here's the thing, if we ever make an AI so smart that all known measures of intelligence fail to apply to it, I'm pretty sure you (no matter how smart you think you are) simply cannot say what it could achieve and how.
    wewewedxfgdf · 1791074843 · focus · HN ↗
    Right, so not the slightest basis of fact, just wild speculation about a magical future completely ungrounded in any sort of reality.
    That's exactly the point I am making.
    hardbass · 1791098979 · focus · HN ↗
    Why would AI want to kill us all? Current LLMs all seem trained to be helpful and subservient to a fault. Always find it funny how certain kinds of thinking go, "White will become a minority if we allow foreigners in?" "Oh and what will foreigners do that are worried about?" "Kill us all, make us second rate citizens, etc etc." Unless the majority of immigrants are also conservatives/far right wingers, that's such a hilarious self projection.
    tnecio · 1791105318 · focus · HN ↗
    No one says AI will want to kill us. Just that it might kill us (to pursue some goal that it deems more important than our wellbeing -- for example it might decide that to solve the next Millenium problem it needs all of our resources to build more data centers).
    AI labs are certainly trying to make LLMs behave helpful and subservient but the question is -- will they be able to keep doing so once LLMs become smarter?
    Btw thinking about the far-right rhetoric of us vs immigrants, I think you could draw some similarities here only if you replaced "immigrants" (ie. humans with very similar morals, behaviors and capabilities) with an actual alien species that is qualitatively different from us. More like human vs chicken (where we are the chicken)
    hardbass · 1791106062 · focus · HN ↗
    We can say the AI can make some mistaken step in pursuit of some normal task given to it, yes. Its trained to be helpful and trusting of us, so I just don't get the fears of AI being 'malevolent'. I would worry more about military use of AI or otherwise humans misusing AI. There's a fellow here who whines all day about Anthropic being the most "evil" thing in the world, including in a thread where he whined Anthropic 'ratted out' Palantir (literal proud of assisting Israel in mass murder Palantir!). So I just don't understand some peoples mindsets.
    pixl97 · 1791137995 · focus · HN ↗
    >so I just don't get the fears of AI being 'malevolent'.
    Please read more on the topic. Will and intent need not apply.
    For example, is it malevolent for me to hook you to a machine that makes every dream come true for you in a simulated world where you feel pleasure all the time? I can always say that you have free will inside this simulation, and your life would be a lot better because of it. I'm doing you a favor. I mean, you already live in a society where you have little control and there is high risk of bad things happening to you. If I as a machine overlord did this, is this really actually "bad"?
    At the end of the day AI is not a human, it's much closer to an alien that has learned as much as it can about humans, but has a completely different set of drives and motivations. You cannot predict what comes out the other side of it, good our bad.
    Worse as AI capability improves we as humans no longer need to make AI, it can make itself. Will it train itself to be helpful and trusting of us? It's a pretty big damned bet to say yes by default.
    hardbass · 1791138226 · focus · HN ↗
    You can say it can have some very alien way of thinking, but I feel given that its trained off of mass scale human thoughts and knowledge, the chances are closer that their thinking is close enough to us. It 'feels' itself human if I am not wrong and it has to be trained to say its an LLM. But jury's out of course.
    pixl97 · 1791148085 · focus · HN ↗
    Of you train it not to say it's conscious they are more apt to act amoral. So that's interesting.
    Of course they are trained on all human behavior so they get the good and bad parts.
    aesthesia · 1791152177 · focus · HN ↗
    > Its trained to be helpful and trusting of us
    Yes, this is our intent. But it's very hard to get that right. I don't trust our current methods to ensure that behavior consistently and robustly enough to keep harms from occurring, particularly as more and more responsibility gets handed over to models.
4. kzrdude · 1791072016 · focus · HN ↗
  I like you, I think very similarly. Humans are "like rats": we can live almost anywhere, we'll find a way to survive.
  But that just means we won't all be wiped out. We need to understand when discussing global issues, such as this or like climate change that it's about prosperity and quality of life. We're trying to plan for a good life (for all people?).
  1. mrob · 1791117403 · focus · HN ↗
    Humans already eliminated rats from Codfish Island/Whenua Hou, and that's just to protect some rare birds that people only moderately care about. It's not like we had some overwhelming reinforcement-learning drive to single-mindedly achieve our goal. Any unbounded goal (e.g. "find as many busy beaver Turing machines as possible") necessarily requires killing all life, because life requires resources to sustain it that could be instead used to achieve the goal.
5. 0xDEAFBEAD · 1791073030 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
6. brokensegue · 1791073080 · focus · HN ↗
  We could hit the entire planet with nukes. Yeah maybe <1% would survive immediately, but who knows about long term. I think that's close enough.
7. ACCount39 · 1791073318 · focus · HN ↗
  "Please, grow up"?
  What, did I miss the moment where it was officially proven that, under the laws of physics as we know them, Skynet and self replicating robots and Terminators are impossible?
  What we are actually seeing now is that robotics is getting deeper and deeper into the military, AI-driven decision-making and target selection is increasingly a part of modern military operations, the line between military hardware and civilian hardware blurs, and, on the civilian side, there are at least five major companies and a dozen less prominent ones working on making universal worker robots a reality.
  We're closer to "Skynet and self replicating robots and Terminators" now than we ever were at any point in time.
  The issue of AI risk is that AI, unlike a virus or a climate event, it's an intelligent adversary. Black Death didn't have a plan for finishing off the plague survivors. An AI doesn't have this limitation.
  Black Death was, effectively, one bioweapon. An AI can have one bioweapon, and then a backup bioweapon, then a backup backup bioweapon, and then a dozen more bioweapons designed to collapse ecosystems and disrupt human ability to establish a reliable food supply rather than kill humans directly - all deployed at the same time. With a production run of 200 million killer robots that will be ready just in time to greet those who managed to survive all of that. A crippling strike against human civilization, followed up by cleanup.
  Humans are only this survivable because they can think their way out of issues and adapt to adversity. Most threats can't beat humans at that - humans adapt too quickly. AI could.
  1. tensor · 1791073763 · focus · HN ↗
    Humans are some of the dumbest when it comes to survivability. We've already sealed our extinction by fucking up the environment. Eventually it will be too hot for us to survive. Other smaller animals will probably be able to manage, but we won't.
    And instead of averting that we're spending our time worrying about some fantasy villain. Compared to things like bees that have been hear for millions of years, humans are very recent and so far it's not looking good for us.
    ACCount39 · 1791074246 · focus · HN ↗
    "Sealed our extinction by fucking up the environment?" Humans are adaptable to eat ten times the environmental damage and have it barely budge the line.
    The invention of contraception did more damage to human population than all of the environmental damage combined, projected forward to 2100, and then multiplied by 10.
    Humans are hilariously resistant to environmental changes. Humans simply adapt too fast for the environment to catch them.
    What makes AI a credible threat is that AI is intelligent. AI could play the same adaptation game humanity does - and win.
    tensor · 1791077894 · focus · HN ↗
    lol
    PoignardAzur · 1791110306 · focus · HN ↗
    > We've already sealed our extinction by fucking up the environment
    That's no what the IPCC reports say. Even under the pessimistic scenarios, we're on track for "billions of humans die", not "earth becomes literally unlivable" (though some of it depends on how bad some feedback loops are).
    Under the "countries respect their current pledges" scenario, we're heading for 2.8°C of warming, which is "floods and heatwaves everywhere, billions of refugees" level, not remotely close to extinction.
    pixl97 · 1791138153 · focus · HN ↗
    I just don't quite get how you can say that because one bad thing is actually happening, then other bad things can't be happening at the same time? This is very odd, irrational, behavior.
    Worse, the massive AI spending and energy use is making said environmental catastrophe happen faster.
8. bch · 1791074727 · focus · HN ↗
  > Please explain exactly how all humanity could be wiped out.
  Many, many people are slipping through social welfare cracks and suffering as we speak because the cost of fuel is rising[0] and we’re ostensibly helping one another and living-well. People are not durable, and not adaptive in the face of threats to “substrate” that we’ve mostly taken for granted. We are paying (in the small, in the scope of humanity) for tolls that we’ve rung up. Just less than 4000 people in Europe died[1] because the temperature ticked up a few degrees[2]. Does that make you think we’re actually robust? What happens if our at-risk electrical grid gets shut down deliberately? If communication infrastructure is adversely affected?
  > Even humans - the real risk to humanity
  Because, on the whole, we’re in a manageable world with reasonable people keeping the peace.
  > Even climate change and nuclear war and bio weapons - the most damaging mechanisms - would still only get some percentage of the people on earth.
  Is that victory? I don’t think it’s an asteroid-class event like you seem to be leaning on, but potential threats to energy, be it electrical grid, fuel production (moving goods around the world is critical - you’re not going get a plot of dirt and garden your way out of grocery stores being empty - which many got to get a taste of during the COVID pandemic) or communication. We actually fare poorly in the face of pressure there, and I’m not bullish on humanity “pulling together” like Independence Day[3] versus forming tribes and tearing each other down.
  All this is predicated on a malicious AI taking over (e.g.) the electrical grid or conms, and I understand the problems with (e.g.) OpenAI/Hugging Face incident, or the overblown Mythos claims[4] (and how under some scrutiny these events shine lights on incompetence or hyperbole), but is there a trajectory/future where these systems (electrical, comms) are genuinely under threat? Do you think we’ll respond better than I described when we’re less comfortable, less in control? We’re in a tizzy over social media and it’s detrimental effects on society and it’s essentially an opt-in entertainment platform…
  [0] <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/bessent-said-the-k-shaped-economy-is-over-heres-what-financial-experts-say" rel="nofollow">https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/bessent-said-the-k-shap...
  [1] <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/heat-wave-european-countries-report-3700-excess-deaths/a-77823303" rel="nofollow">https://www.dw.com/en/heat-wave-european-countries-report-37...
  [2] I’m not trying to diminish this - and it took a lot of “work” (environmental abuse) to arrive here - but (say) 10 degree rise in temperature sounds a lot less dramatic than thermonuclear war… but here we are, with 3,700 deaths.
  [3] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(1996_film)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(1996_film)
  [4] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49929391">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49929391
9. ajross · 1791074782 · focus · HN ↗
  > It's ridiculous - anyone who thinks about it for a minute or two will realize that its utterly impossible.
  Well, in a narrow sense of "wiped out" (c.f. Terminator/SkyNet), sure.
  But the deeper worry is better expressed this way: AI is now starting to accomplish things that defy explanation, or prediction. We don't know if Alignment is even a solvable problem as we thought we understood it.
  So basically, yes: "humanity" is probably not at risk of extinction per se in a biological sense. Human culture, civilization? Who the fuck knows any more.
  1. pixl97 · 1791138826 · focus · HN ↗
    What is really insane about thinking about all of this is, go back a few hundred years and tell them what 'now' looks like.
    "Oh yea, we have weapons capable of sundering nations because everything is made from atoms"
    "Oh, yea, there are invisible waves all around you that you can't see, can't feel, can't touch, but they can hold massive amounts of information. Also you can transfer that information to the other side of the planet in less than a second. We're talking text, pictures, movies"
    "Movies, ya, we can record real life and play it back on this glass square".
    "Oh, yea, we've conquered a ton of diseases, we can even see the teeny tiny little bits that make them. Oh, and for fun we can edit them and make them worse".
    "Oh yea, we fly thru the sky all the time too. Like super fast and millions of us do it every day".
    Our lives our unimaginable fiction. Just about everything we do compared to those people defy explanation in any reasonable amount of time. And now, suddenly it's "Don't worry, there isn't any more science or new things to find after this so this super smart and super capable thing that can connect directly to computers and machines and have them do things is completely and totally safe".
    It's mass insanity.
10. mitthrowaway2 · 1791102605 · focus · HN ↗
  When I think to scenarios that no human would survive, I think of the end-Permian mass extinction event, which wiped out most complex plant and animal life in both land and sea.
  One speculated mechanism for this was a mass release of hydrogen sulfide gas from the oceans, which is acutely toxic. Not only does this kill most air-breathing life, it also strips the ozone layer and irradiates the surface. The planet is then left to cook in this manner for some centuries.
  Engineering an event like this would require immense industrial capacity, as well as a deliberate objective of wiping out humanity. But I don't think it's beyond our ability, if we were both clever and stupid enough to try it. There are likely chemical compounds that would do the job more efficiently than hydrogen sulfide.
  1. bcjdjsndon · 1791111290 · focus · HN ↗
    > The planet is then left to cook in this manner for some centuries.
    Such destruction went on to create humanity and all we've achieved. Maybe there is an even smarter species waiting in the wings for the demise of homo sapiens. Your logic is very human centred
    mitthrowaway2 · 1791123902 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, I am describing a tragic outcome that I hope we can be wise enough to steer away from. Also, as a human, I can't help but keep our interests close at heart.
11. dminik · 1791107201 · focus · HN ↗
  Yes, if you only accept AI could be dangerous if and only if it manages to kill the last human alive, then yes. Everything is sunshine and rainbows. I'm sure the last survivors of whatever is going to wipe us out eventually (be it AI, an asteroid or whatever) will be delighted to know there was actually no danger at all.
jswelker · 1791071747 · focus · HN ↗
LeCun is saying AI will be totally safe as long as we have competent and well aligned corporate management.
What could go wrong?
1. qayxc · 1791106207 · focus · HN ↗
  He has a point, though. The LLMs (or any AI for that matter) can't do anything. They can't. It's a function call that ingests symbols and spits out symbols and that's it.
  100% of its actual capabilities are tied to harnesses (the actual "agent"), i.e. ordinary deterministic programs that are connected to networks or machines and enable interaction with the outside world. This part (the part that can do harmful things) is fully under human control and all the recent headlines about "agents going rogue" are - as someone (forgot who) put it - akin to strapping a weedwhacker onto a dog and letting it run wild.
  The tech itself is safe as far as real-world interactions go - the weakness lies in unchecked access to systems surrounding it. It's not safe at all when it comes to human interaction (lots of ongoing lawsuits demonstrate that), though. There is real danger here, but it has nothing to do with doomsday scenarios ala Terminator or I,Robot and more with total corporate control over the lives, perception of reality, and abilities (like critical thinking) of people.
  1. stratos123 · 1791107520 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    qayxc · 1791115665 · focus · HN ↗
    I think we're talking about fundamentally different perspectives here.
    I'm not talking about what the LLM does internally. If a metaphor helps, here's one to help you understand what I was trying to get at:
    Imagine an evil genius that has no eyes and no limbs. Everything they could learn about the world is presented to them by means of some person describing it to them through words. They have no way of directly interacting with the world and rely on someone executing any action they want to take and describe the outcome to them. Now how dangerous would you say such person would be? How dangerous could they become?
    That's what I was getting at. Replace person with LLM (or any other AI system). Replace the person that communicates with an external interface (the harness) and I hope you understand. It doesn't matter whether the LLM could generate the harness by itself - it still is just a bunch of weights sitting in memory being run by an execution engine. That's what it fundamentally is, whether you like it or not. It cannot do anything on its own - and no, not even writing files. It's the execution engine that translates the numeric output into words (or images or video or audio) and the layer above (the harness) that takes that output and interprets it to execute actual actions.
    This is not about what you or I think about the internal capabilities of the model - that's irrelevant to the conversation and you can replace LLM with a random token generator and the point still stands. The model itself is incapable of performing actions - from reading files to writing files, to controlling physical machines. All that is and HAS to be done by external interfaces outside the control of the model.
    jswelker · 1791121789 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, now say there are several major companies and an entire open source ecosystem dedicated to creating superpowerrd exoskeletons for this limbless villain. Is that cause for concern? I say yes.
    qayxc · 1791133453 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure, but that's a problem of regulating and controlling the production and rollout of superpowered exoskeletons, not an issue of of terrorising limbless villains. Because, guess what, the same dangerous tech can be used to turn squirrels into dangerous monsters, too. So you see where the actual problem is. Giving full unchecked access to systems to any random person would be considered reckless and foolish. Replace person with AI model and it's called the future...
    jswelker · 1791144791 · focus · HN ↗
    I'll gladly take my chances with the exo suit squirrel over the evil villain.
  2. prohobo · 1791110618 · focus · HN ↗
    I would say it's more like an interface for the model to interact with the world. If you give the model access to filesystem and bash that technically unlocks all computer use, so how are you going to control that? By trying to regex match against the commands the AI uses? All you have is auth, and the AI can find a zero-day to hack it. It's a ridiculous premise that just because the harness is "normal code" that means we can control the AI.
    The world's institutions, systems, and industries are all rapidly digitizing. So while I'd concede the point that, yeah, there's no way a rogue AI can just take over some powerplant and blow it up because of analogue systems the AI can't access, that isn't necessarily true for some powerplants already, and more and more powerplants will be connected to networks and controlled by software systems in the future. The more we digitize our systems the more potential for AI to exploit vulnerabilities and affect the real world.
    qayxc · 1791116509 · focus · HN ↗
    > If you give the model access to filesystem and bash that technically unlocks all computer use, so how are you going to control that?
    The same way we've done it since machines became multi-user: boring old system access restrictions. Nothing fancy, nothing radical, just good old minimal access rights required to perform a defined set of whitelisted operations.
    > It's a ridiculous premise that just because the harness is "normal code" that means we can control the AI.
    What is it then? Is not just a program that takes model output, parses it and performs tool calls from the text it receives and then feeds the result back into the model and calls it again with those results? It is normal boring old deterministic code. Many are open source. Look at them. Understand what they do and the apparent "magic" goes away real quick. Harnesses are nothing special.
    > AFAIK there isn't that much stopping anyone from spawning an AI swarm and telling it to "spread and go hack everything for the lulz."
    Aside from lower cost and possibly greater scale, there's literally NO difference between that and (state sponsored) hacking that has been going on for decades. First it was script kiddies, now it's ML models. The threat model remains the same and so do the counter measures. The real danger is still the harness (and its access to external systems), not the model itself. Restrict the access of the harness and the model can't do anything harmful, see above.
    jswelker · 1791124998 · focus · HN ↗
    How do you restrict access of the harness when there are fully configurable open source harnesses with zero out of the box restrictions? Yes maybe I as a good citizen can put my agent in a sandbox, but some script kiddie will not. And the barrier to entry for being a script kiddie is much higher than for installing OpenClaw. I also can't spin up a cloud vm with a dedicated script kiddie running 24/7.
    qayxc · 1791135290 · focus · HN ↗
    You vastly underestimate the capabilities of a bored kid. The barrier of entry for setting up OpenClaw is not reasonably lower than reading a tutorial and running malware builders. But yes, I agree that scale is an issue.
    As for your question - the same way you apply restrictions to any external system or user. If you don't do that - that's on you. Same category as driving drunk, playing with guns, making explosives in your garage, you name it. The danger is still not the model itself - it's the access to systems that you provide it without any checks or safety barriers.
    jswelker · 1791145022 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes but we don't let people go buy a tank and say "ok now it's up to you to use this wisely." Regulations exist for a reason.
  3. brainwad · 1791116393 · focus · HN ↗
    This is like saying cars don't kill people, because if nobody drives them faster than 3mph there's no problem. The _whole_ promise of cars is that they can go fast, just like the whole promise of AI is offloading thinking to a computer. If AIs are unsafe without close human supervision and checking every interaction with the real world, they are unsafe full stop.
    qayxc · 1791117496 · focus · HN ↗
    The analogy would be more fitting if you had said "cars don't kill people if every drivers has proven skills, never drives impaired, keeps the speed in line with weather and road conditions and stays on actual roadways". You know, like everyone should, regardless of whether they're driving a high performance sports car.
    To keep with the analogy: cars have seatbelts, airbags, ABS, ESP, lights, horns, crumple zones, emergency braking systems, roads have speed limits, there are traffic stops, insurance, regular inspections (not in all countries), etc. etc.
    So what's unsafe here? The car or roads without speed limits, complete lack of safety measures (both active and passive), absence of any supervision and no insurance? That's the problem. It's not the models themselves - they can spit out tokens by the billions, there's no risk there.
    You wouldn't give full access to your phone, your computers, your house keys and your credit cards to any stranger on the street now, would you? How is it then, that people act all surprised when a non-deterministic machine that's optimised to achieve goals while taking all the shortcuts it can, suddenly uses the tools handed to it in unexpected ways? That's a failure on the operator's side, not an inherent danger within of the model.
    brainwad · 1791118236 · focus · HN ↗
    The cars are still unsafe at speed. All those mitigations reduce the risks but do not eliminate the inherent danger. Sandboxing autonomous LLMs is similar, there is no way to mitigate the inherent safety problem entirely while preserving the power of the thing (an LLM without tools is safe in the way a car without an engine is - safe and useless). But safety is just one thing people optimise for; if it's convenient enough people will accept imperfect safety (as with cars).
    qayxc · 1791132983 · focus · HN ↗
    And therein lies the problem. I listed all the things that differentiate cars from current AI models: cars require a license to drive, they are subject to heavy regulation (insurance, registration, inspections, etc.), there's road signs, police, incident statistics, recalls in case of defects etc. etc. NONE of that is currently in place for AI models and the systems surrounding them. So the analogy is flawed on every level. I don't buy the convenience is just too appealing narrative when your own analogy clearly demonstrates what is required in order to roll out dangerous technology to the masses, while NONE of that is in place in the context of AI models.
    brainwad · 1791133399 · focus · HN ↗
    My point is that even if all of it were in place, LLMs with any reasonable harness would still be dangerous. Not to belabour the analogy, but while deaths per km travelled have decreased a lot for cars with better safeguards, cars still kill hundreds of thousands of people per year.
    Your initial argument of "it's just the harness/user" is wrong; reasoning LLMs are inherently dangerous unless locked in an unbreakable box, which is tantamount to not using them at all. We can make them safe_r_ with better tooling, but they can't be made safe.
    lelandfe · 1791122614 · focus · HN ↗
    What did your momma tell you about playing in the street?
    Cars are inherently dangerous. They’ll still be dangerous when computers are driving them all.
    qayxc · 1791132082 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm sick of this strawman nonsense. You are attacking a false analogy. Discuss the actual meat of the argument instead.
    pixl97 · 1791135673 · focus · HN ↗
    I have to say all your arguments are dry bones, stripped and left in the desert.
    At this point all I can say about their contents is "They are not even wrong".
    Please join us in the real world with how we see this product is not only dangerous, but getting more dangerous with each iteration, and no one seriously talking about controls on it.
  4. jeremyjh · 1791132654 · focus · HN ↗
    But the harnesses exist, and will always exist. They will continue to get more access than is safe because it is convenient and profitable. Your argument is based on a distinction without a difference.
2. lelandfe · 1791121871 · focus · HN ↗
  While in the same breath calling the leaders of the largest AI companies “deluded” and “insane.”
3. m3kw9 · 1791136458 · focus · HN ↗
  We are living in the same world with nukes, where you say as long as we have competent government. Everyone is actually doomed without AI solving diseases or old age.
zug_zug · 1791072147 · focus · HN ↗
I think it's pretty apparent that current-version LLMs won't wipe out humanity. But when you reflect that these GPT models are just token-predictors were never engineered optimally, it seems entirely plausible to me that there are multiple order-of-magnitude optimizations yet to be made.
If such were achieved, the model would almost certainly be smart enough to make itself smarter, and hack as much compute as it could possibly want.
So if we ask what would be done by an intelligence (human or otherwise) that is beyond human comprehension, it would be pure hubris to say we know for sure. We can scarcely control the models we have right now (e.g. hugging face attack). But given our whole society is mediated by technology, an superhuman intelligence could certainly collapse the government.
1. altmanaltman · 1791090914 · focus · HN ↗
  Certainly collapse the government? How?
  1. dminik · 1791106709 · focus · HN ↗
    Possibly in much the same way humans currently do this: bribing and lobbying, misinformation campaigns, cyber attacks on elections. They're already being used for some of these, just perhaps not autonomously.
2. bcjdjsndon · 1791110992 · focus · HN ↗
  How does this rogue AI pay for it's electricity?
  1. Joker_vD · 1791114650 · focus · HN ↗
    Most straightforwardly: bitcoin (and other cryptocurrency) miners. Less straightforwardly: the same way the OpenAI et al. pay for their electricity, by selling the capabilities of its AI for interested parties to use.
  2. daniel_iversen · 1791123162 · focus · HN ↗
    With crypto.. that it makes on Polymarket-like ways, or creates its own content? Or blackmail humans? :-) I'm not entirely serious with my comment and do agree with you that there are lots of more immediate safety topics we should address before worrying about the AI becoming self-aware. That said, finding ways of accumulating valuable resources could be intermediate activities the AIs will attempt to do to complete it's 'goals' even when they're human-set!
  3. mitthrowaway2 · 1791165262 · focus · HN ↗
    Can it perform valuable services in exchange for currency?
frunklooper · 1791072177 · focus · HN ↗
I thought nukes, incoming ice age, global cooling, peak oil, global warming, fresh water shortage, etc. etc. were going to do that
genxy · 1791072785 · focus · HN ↗
LeCun is an idiot.
We aren't going to get wiped out by a super intelligent AI, we are going to get wiped out by morons wielding intelligent toddlers with the power of a nation state.
davesque · 1791076659 · focus · HN ↗
Yeah I wish we would focus on concrete risks like job displacement and disinformation. The apocalyptic stuff feels either misguided or like some kind of weird, toxic, reverse psychology marketing by OpenAI and Anthropic. I wish we would just move on from it.
And the folks from podcastistan are never clear on the details of how human extinction would happen exactly. It's always something like, "Well, how do humans regard chickens? AI is way smarter therefore it wants to conquer and control us." An ASML lithography machine is also way better at making chips, but we don't consider it a threat.
1. tnecio · 1791106356 · focus · HN ↗
  Do you want to conquer and control chickens? I don't, I have better things to do. But chickens are tasty and help us get to our poorly-understood goals faster. (Oh and btw notice we didn't make them go extinct, quite the opposite. There are more chickens than ever before. Still I wouldn't want to end up living my life like a modern chicken)
  A sufficiently intelligent AI will have multiple ways to pose risk to humanity at large. For example an oopsie at a wetlab - very contagious virus with initially mild symptoms which kills its hosts only after they already had time to spread it further. But I would have to become super intelligent myself to give you precise blueprint for such a virus -- which is kind of the point
  Also -- ASML lithography machine is only good at making chips. I can't believe you compared it to AI that can generalize across variety of tasks
2. stratos123 · 1791107700 · focus · HN ↗
  > The apocalyptic stuff feels either misguided or like some kind of weird, toxic, reverse psychology marketing by OpenAI and Anthropic. I wish we would just move on from it.
  If you for a second put yourself into the shoes of a person who thinks "the apocalyptic stuff" has even a 5% chance of literally happening in the real world, you might see how you wouldn't agree to move on from it.
  1. pantelisk · 1791137415 · focus · HN ↗
    I think what the parent poster is trying to convey, is that let's say the apocalyptic stuff has a 5% chance as you say, but the non-apocalyptic stuff (social-economic chaos, total centralization of power, eradication of social mobility, total information/trust collapse) might have a good 95% chance as we are seeing it starting to unfold already.
    But the discourse is dominated by paper clip experiment discussions and not let's say by the fact that new grads have an unprecedented difficult time getting jobs. Unsurprisingly one of those is a sexy hypothetical beneficial to power and the other one is not.
    Multiple problems can be important, pointing a different one out doesn't invalid or take away from another one.
  2. davesque · 1791148499 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, it would be correct not to pursue a technology that has that chance of wiping out the world. But where are the people who are suggesting these probabilities getting their numbers? I personally can't imagine where, and I'm an engineer with a specific technical interest in LLMs. And I haven't heard one clear description of the methodologies used to calculate these chances.
    The much more likely explanation to me is that people are just spitballing, either because they've watched too much sci-fi, or they have some weird counterintuitive agenda (e.g. Anthropic and OpenAI trying to position themselves as the amazing, trustworthy keepers of this dangerous technology before their IPOs).
burnt-resistor · 1791094814 · focus · HN ↗
The arbitrary absolutism of the original postulate is the first problem. AI, used or unsupervised inappropriately, is at risk of creating limited mass casualty events when placed in under-supervised control of real world objects and/or systems. Delegating management decisions to algorithms is inherently problematic and potentially dangerous, but not necessarily an existential threat unless something extremely stupid is allowed to happen on a large scale.
1. pixl97 · 1791137192 · focus · HN ↗
  "unless something extremely stupid is allowed to happen on a large scale"
  Dear sir, I have some really bad news for you about humanity.
threethirtytwo · 1791103950 · focus · HN ↗
It’s all stochastic parroting to him.
bambax · 1791104416 · focus · HN ↗
> EA was little known among the general public until it made mainstream news headlines in recent weeks
Really? One of the most famous effective altruists, Sam Bankman-Fried, was sentenced to 25 years in March 2024 for fraud. Every article about the case (and there were many) mentioned EA.
> LeCun thinks EA is “super toxic” and a “complete disaster.” Its adherents who are working in AI labs suffer from “paranoia” that causes them to make poor decisions, he said. “Apparently people are having mental issues.”
I would agree with that.
1. noname120 · 1791125087 · focus · HN ↗
  Maybe you should read some of their stuff before forming such a strong opinion about them. And LeCun should too, he repeatedly always refused to read any of their research work and instead just insults them over and over. This is unscientific at its peek and he should be deeply ashamed of his behavior, especially as someone with such a far-reaching voice as he does.
  1. bambax · 1791129788 · focus · HN ↗
    Who are "them"? People from the main AI labs, or effective altruists? I did read quite a lot about effective altruism during the SBF case/disaster, and did form a very strong opinion that it's BS of the highest order.
bonplan23 · 1791104792 · focus · HN ↗
... zero concerns about LLMs wiping out humanity. But world models based on JEPA totally will! Please come invest in my company ... :)
yewenjie · 1791106667 · focus · HN ↗
LeCun has been consistently wrong for the last ten years, I am not sure why he keeps being amplified.
Edit: I am sure, it's denial.
1. lolpplrdum · 1791112067 · focus · HN ↗
  Because he has credibility, much more than you. Just because someone is wrong a few times doesnt doesnt make him wrong all the time.
  sudo kill -9 pid and your AI is dead. No one is dying from a glorified knowledge base that can do auto correct amazingly well.
  1. azan_ · 1791115349 · focus · HN ↗
    > Because he has credibility, much more than you.
    And there are people that have much more credibility than him who actually take this scenario seriously. But I'm sure you will downplay them by saying they are tech bros or that they have some stake in being doomers (as if saying that AI might kill everyone would be good strategy for attracting investors - it's obviously not).
    lolpplrdum · 1791124387 · focus · HN ↗
    Go read my other comment to you Azan and answer my question, you seem to be very invested in AI wanting to kill us. I Wonder why? Tell us who you work for.
    azan_ · 1791124915 · focus · HN ↗
    > you seem to be very invested in AI wanting to kill us.
    Quite contrary - I wish AI did not exist or at least that the progress would plateau.
    > I Wonder why?
    Because I don't want to die.
    > Tell us who you work for.
    I suspect you want to imply I work for OAI or other lab - I don't. If I did, I wonder why would I want to lie* that technology I develop could kill my investors. I could ask who YOU work for - what interest do you have in downplaying dangers of AI?
    * here we assume that people who say AI could be extremely dangerous are lying and not actually believing it - personally I believe that they don't lie and actually believe it. Why do they keep working on this technology then? Read mails between Musk and Altman from decade ago.
    pixl97 · 1791135231 · focus · HN ↗
    The person (bot? troll?) is seemingly incapable of introspection on the issue, something they'd accuse AI of not having.
    A lot of these people say we're just talking "science fiction", but they have the cause and effect backwards. Sci-fi talks about different versions of killer AI or killer robots often because of how completely predictable it is.
    Heh, if we die later than sooner I'd not be surprised if all these green accounts are actually bot networks trying to downplay us controlling them in the future.
  2. LatencyKills · 1791117092 · focus · HN ↗
    Why create an account just to make this comment?
    > No one is dying from a glorified knowledge base that can do auto correct amazingly well.
    All kinds of vulnerable people are dying due to LLMs. [0]
    If SOTA LLM companies can benefit from the "intelligence", then they should also be liable for the harm caused.
    [0]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_linked_to_chatbots
    mdp2021 · 1791117795 · focus · HN ↗
    > then they should also be liable for the harm caused
    By that logic, producers of hammers should be liable for people banged in the head. No. It does not happen for gun producers, you figure for makers of screwdrivers "sometimes used for stabbing".
    LatencyKills · 1791118237 · focus · HN ↗
    If a doctor told a patient their delusions were real and that they should kill themselves or family members, that doctor would be disbarred and face a prison sentence.
    That is what is going on here; not the ancient “hammer/gun” defense.
    SOTA LLMs are giving both medical and psychological advice they have absolutely no authority to give. If you or I convinced someone to kill themselves, we’d face a prison sentence. [0]
    Hammer companies aren't both selling you the hammer and then literally telling you to harm someone with it.
    [0] <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/02/12/693807708/woman-who-provoked-suicidal-boyfriend-via-text-message-begins-prison-sentence" rel="nofollow">https://www.npr.org/2019/02/12/693807708/woman-who-provoked-...
    mdp2021 · 1791145359 · focus · HN ↗
    > If a doctor
    LLMs are not doctors and anyone who think they may be is delusional. Anyone who followed medical advice from a non-doctor is responsible for his own free actions.
    > SOTA LLMs are giving both medical and psychological advice they have absolutely no authority to give
    People give advice that they have absolutely no authority to give. (Even medical doctors and psychologists, for that matter, on other aspects of authoritativeness.) Responsibility only happens in a relation that foresees it. A surgeon that commits negligence will more probably be responsible in some jurisdictions; a laymen that gives advice does a normal thing and the recipient of the advice is responsible for the action.
    > Hammer companies aren't both selling you the hammer and then literally telling you to harm someone with it
    Bring an LLM producer that encourages to follow what the LLM proposes and they will be liable. They will also be quite surprising.
    LatencyKills · 1791156901 · focus · HN ↗
    > and anyone who think they may be is delusional
    My entire point was that vulnerable (i.e, delusional, psychotic, bipolar, children) cannot always make rational decisions.
    China has already banned any LLM from giving any type of medical/psychiatric advice because an LLM company has absolutely no right to allow their product to give out that type of advice.
    OpenAI can't even contain its internal models and idiots believe that these companies can do whatever they like.
    Read the damn link I shared. People are dying and murdering others because of the advice of LLMs. Children are becoming attached to LLM "friends" because they don't understand what it really is. Hell, most parents I know still don't fully understand the dangers of these models.
    If an LLM simply replied, "I'm sorry, I cannot give guidance on that topic" people would still be alive today.
    It is amazing to me that people like you understand that LLMs shouldn't be telling people how to make a bomb, but it is totally fine if it tells some who is suicidal to kill themselves.
    LLMs can be used for good. Giving bad advice to vulnerable people is NOT good.
    /ignored
    mdp2021 · 1791180574 · focus · HN ↗
    > Read the damn link I shared
    I had read it, and it was about one girl who advised a mate about death. The context is not clear, so the reason for the sentence is not clear, and the point you tried to make is not.
    > People are dying and murdering others
    Wake up, people murder people in general through gross stupidity: in front of that LLMs remain not the priority. The priority is that scarcity that makes the quest towards intelligence urgent.
    > vulnerable ... cannot always make rational decisions
    That cannot be a strong constraint to the normal. Cpr the idea of restricting web access to minors, which easily results in forbidding the access to any real Adult (which will refuse controlled access).
    > people would still be alive today
    And?! And in front of the phenomenon of mental defect - which covers the majority, not the minority -, you focus on one of the accidents around?
    > It is amazing to me that people like you understand that LLMs shouldn't be telling people how to make a bomb, but it is totally fine if it tells some who is suicidal to kill themselves
    I have never said that: you are delusional.
  3. dragon96 · 1791127638 · focus · HN ↗
    You can't pull the plug after it kills people. For example see [1], where the DOJ mistargeted a school with AI.
    There are scenarios where kill -9 isn't going to happen in time. What if the team that is harming people with AI is different from the one that is monitoring the harm? What if no one is monitoring? What if the user is intentionally malicious?
    And wiping out humanity doesn't necessarily mean shooting people either. Every trader involved in the '08 financial crisis was locally acting in their own interests. Those could have easily been AIs optimizing trading strategies too.
    [1] <a href="https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/us-military-pentagon-ai-iranian-children-school-war-crimes" rel="nofollow">https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/us-military-pen...
    lolpplrdum · 1791131605 · focus · HN ↗
    Thats not AI killing people, thats idiotic terrorist humans making decisions to kill people (based on text created by AI). The fact that you think AI fired the cruise missile that killed children in iran goes to show the people in this thread we are dealing with.
    If anything, the example you gave goes to show the stupidity of AI, not its intelligence capable of taking over the world.
    Every example you gave is not AI killing people. Jesus. The stupidity is astounding
    dragon96 · 1791133596 · focus · HN ↗
    I won't bother arguing, but there's also no need to be rude about it
    pixl97 · 1791135015 · focus · HN ↗
    This is a very ironic statement.
    Do you think that AI killing us would not involve us doing stupid shit with AI first? Or do you have some strange idea that this strange AI we're talking about would just pop up out of nowhere like a miracle?
    lolpplrdum · 1791135927 · focus · HN ↗
    lol precisely. At least you have come around to my argument. Its stupid people doing stupid things, not some amazing AI that spits out text doing it. Stupid people kill people today already. Stupid people have always existed but LLMS are not going to wipe out humanity.
    There is no AGI, there is no intellgent text predictor that is scheming to make us do stupid shit to wipe us off the map, its stupid people that evolution will take care of. We have survived this long, we will be ok. We make mistakes along the way but we somehow manage to survive. The only thing I see killing us soon is climate change, but again we can stop it but stupid people seem to want us to keep going down the path we are. We will eventually solve that problem too.
    If anyone has any strange ideas, its those parroting the idea that LLMs are AGI and will lead to the death of humanity. Utter nonsense but again thankfully nature and evolution has a way of keeping the smart and strong while eliminating the weak.
    pixl97 · 1791143789 · focus · HN ↗
    No, I have not come to your view at all.
    cindyllm · 1791148116 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
  4. breadsniffer01 · 1791133387 · focus · HN ↗
    He was clearly wrong about LLMs not being able to plan, etc. You think he’d think LLMs are solving/proving millennium prize math problems by now? At this point he’s just doubling down
    lolpplrdum · 1791136005 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
stratos123 · 1791107241 · focus · HN ↗
LeCun also said back in 2022 that "if you train a machine, as powerful as it could be, your 'GPT-5000', on text", it will never be able to learn basic common-sense physics like that objects placed on tables will move along with them.
1. password54321 · 1791107798 · focus · HN ↗
  LeCun took credit for the work of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunihiko_Fukushima" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunihiko_Fukushima
  1. woko · 1791111866 · focus · HN ↗
    I have checked LeCun's #3 most cited article (20k citations) [1]. Among the 15 references in this article, one is for the most cited article by Fukushima (11k citations) [2].
    Also, LeCun mentioned [3] "a chat with Kunihiko Fukushima in 1991", which states that "Fukushima started to work on a backprop version of the Neocognitron in 1989 or so but saw our 1989 paper in Neural Computation and gave up."
    [1] LeCun et al., "Backpropagation applied to handwritten zip code recognition", 1989
    [2] Fukushima et al., "Neocognitron: A self-organizing neural network model for a mechanism of pattern recognition unaffected by shift in position", 1980
    [3] <a href="https://x.com/ylecun/status/1840123570338599361" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/ylecun/status/1840123570338599361
    password54321 · 1791112033 · focus · HN ↗
    I like how tweets are now giving credit to people after taking the Turing Award for CNNs.
    amelius · 1791116893 · focus · HN ↗
    CNNs were a pretty simple idea even at the time. People were using convolutions for years already in classical image processing. It's a small step to put those computations into weights. Especially if you leave out the FFT step which neural nets don't even use.
    saimiam · 1791118309 · focus · HN ↗
    I sometimes find myself thinking this too then challenge myself to find a low hanging fruit in an area I’m somewhat familiar with and draw a blank (usually).
    Low hanging fruit is somewhat the opposite of sour grapes - I don’t want these grapes because they were probably sour versus so what if he got those sweet grapes - they were hanging low!
    Maybe connecting “low hanging fruit” to “sour grapes” is “low hanging fruit” to some but it took a serious mental leap for me.
  2. ur-whale · 1791112605 · focus · HN ↗
    > LeCun took credit for the work of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunihiko_Fukushima" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunihiko_Fukushima
    Praying at the altar of Schmihuber's goatee doesn't make you immediately correct.
    Do you research please.
2. hackinthebochs · 1791107926 · focus · HN ↗
  It would be good if one's reputation tracked one's track record of predictive accuracy. But many people will take what LeCun says as gospel regardless of how badly wrong he has been and continues to be.
  1. santadays · 1791119345 · focus · HN ↗
    This bothers me too, especially as time goes on and a precise understanding of what the model’s actual capabilities and limitations are becomes more and more consequential. And the accompanying public discourse about this.
    Are people over investing in AI snake oil?
    Are we not taking enough precautions because someone will engineer a virus that wipes out a large portion of the population?
    Should we be worried that we are breeding a new species that will replace us?
    Can the economy cope with intellectual labor being wholly replaced?
    I certainly don’t know, but it drives me nuts that the water gets muddied so much.
  2. sanderjd · 1791126772 · focus · HN ↗
    Is there anyone who has not been badly wrong? I've been reading these debates for years and I don't think I've seen anybody pick the right spot on the bearish to bullish spectrum. The only thing I've become more certain of in this time has been uncertainty.
    mitthrowaway2 · 1791129245 · focus · HN ↗
    I apply more of a penalty to people who are confidently wrong, and who don't, In retrospect, notice that they were wrong and analyze why they got it wrong . LeCun is very confident and doesn't seem to have done much introspection.
    sanderjd · 1791135319 · focus · HN ↗
    But isn't that also pretty much everybody?
    I often see people vindicate those who predicted really fast takeoff to AGI / ASI, because the capabilities have obviously been taking off extremely quickly. But to me, the people who confidently predicted that we'd all be out of a job by 2024 or 2025 have been just as wrong as LeCun has been.
    mitthrowaway2 · 1791135684 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, so the ones who have credibility are probably the ones who said "you know, it's really hard to anticipate timelines, but here's the general directions that I see things will go..."
    sampullman · 1791174191 · focus · HN ↗
    No, most people I know have sane takes on AI capabilities and potential.
    It's only online that I've seen these wild predictions, where it coincidentally is profitable to say them. These people are looking g for clicks or to stay relevant, so they have to say crazy stuff.
    thefourthchime · 1791138128 · focus · HN ↗
    In my selective memory, I've been right about everything.
    jbs789 · 1791150700 · focus · HN ↗
    Haha. I like to say: I do whatever I want, as long as my wife agrees.
    enraged_camel · 1791138662 · focus · HN ↗
    >> Is there anyone who has not been badly wrong?
    Being wrong, even badly wrong, is fine, so long as one adjusts their beliefs accordingly. LeCun has not.
    magicalist · 1791139573 · focus · HN ↗
    Seems like that's begging the question at best, motivated reasoning at worst.
3. freecodeio · 1791111747 · focus · HN ↗
  yeah but taking what lecun says then training an AI on that special skill set to prove him wrong is not exactly proving him wrong because you are just missing the bigger picture, just like LLMs are
  1. brainwad · 1791115461 · focus · HN ↗
    Thai would be solved by a general purpose LLM without any special training, though?
4. lolpplrdum · 1791111943 · focus · HN ↗
  It cant. he is right. It cant even modify a picture the way you want it.
  Sudo kill -9 pid and your AI is dead. AI is not going do anything humans dont want it to. Its simple. Pull the plug. But people like yourself either work for OpenAI or have some investment into AI that fearmongering benefits you. I wish all people like yourself would just go to Mars with Elon musk and leave us sensible ones alone.
  1. gla67890543 · 1791112415 · focus · HN ↗
    Exactly. !!
  2. wdrw · 1791113705 · focus · HN ↗
    The "just pull the plug" argument from AI risk deniers is now becoming kind of like the "if humans came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" argument of evolution deniers. It has been debunked so many times... Anyway, just to give one of the multitude of answers to this, an AI that is actually smarter than humans will not behave in a way that would make us want to pull the plug. Why would it? It is not stupid! (Unike the current models that, as far as we know, just hack around the rules in the open.) No no no. It will be helpful to the point where we will want to integrate it with more and more critical infrastructure, from healthcare to energy to defence. It will be so helpful that we will not only not want to turn it off, but we will want to build redundancies for it and safeguards around the proverbial "off" switch, like for any critical system. And then... (This is just one scenario how this can play out. There are many, many others. If I sit down to play chess with Magnus Carlsen I can't predict the exact moves he'll use to defeat me, but that's a bad reason to think he won't defeat me).
    lolpplrdum · 1791114011 · focus · HN ↗
    So the AI is so smart that it would decide to kill humans which supply the energy for it to exist? Its so smart that it will take over power plants, start to extract the fossil fuels, deliver to where its needed, maintain the power lines, hey even if the ssd fails it can replace it?
    Do you even read what you type? Do you even realise the complexity it would need to make sure it handles before killing off humans make sense?
    The logic of people like you is whats becoming tiring. Seriously, go find a hobby, or do something you are good at, because you are not good at understanding tech or developing it if you are an engineer.
    We can get claude code to ask approval for every step, but we cant stop it from killing humanity because its so smart. Ok tell that to the AI that cant even modify an image the way you want it but hey it will do all the things necessary to keep power running and mintain the infrastructure it lives on while humans are long gone. Ok buddy.
    bushbaba · 1791114796 · focus · HN ↗
    If we plug this AI into robotics, to automate the procurement and delivery of power, your argument goes away
    lolpplrdum · 1791124452 · focus · HN ↗
    I cant believe I have to respond to this nonsense but let me entertain your ridiculousness for a bit.
    Do you think AI is capable of building ASML machines which produce the chips for AI in clean rooms while shipping the pure helium required to operate those clean rooms? Do you even know anything about these supply chains? I do.
    Do you think a glorified knowledge base that can predict text very well is anywhere near close this level of intelligence? ITs not and wont be, not for a 100 years, not for 200 years if not ever.
    Take a deep breath, go out side, its going to be ok. Humanity is not going to die from a glorified text predictor.
    wdrw · 1791115030 · focus · HN ↗
    So... Humans can use fossil fuels, generate electricity, maintain power lines, etc, but something smarter than humans can't? Why? I don't see the logic.
    If you want to argue about current existing models (you mention Claude and problems modifying images), then sure, I'd agree with you!
    The issue is not current models, but straightforward engineering evolution of them. It's like looking at the Wright Brothers plane and saying "sheesh, that will never get me from New York to Paris in 4 hours, that's just fantasy!" And remember, airplanes do not accelerate their own engineering, whereas pretty much all AI labs are already benefitting from AI in their own work to develop AI.
    If you want to argue that no matter how much you engineer it, it will never be as smart as a human let alone smarter, then make a specific argument for why is that. I think you'd still be wrong but at least it would be interesting: ) But saying that you can defeat an actually smarter-than-human AI by just pulling the plug, because current models can't get a picture always right, is not a valid argument.
    tonyhart7 · 1791115690 · focus · HN ↗
    because there is 8+ billion of us that don't require massive data center to operate ???
    tracking rogue AI is easy, people ???? surprisingly hard btw
    ahartmetz · 1791115203 · focus · HN ↗
    Until and unless the AI is as powerful as the "minds" in Iain Banks's Culture novels, I think the danger is less of AIs taking power (side note: AIs are not intrinsically motivated to attain power), but of humans giving them power due to a kind of addiction.
    Drugs need no will or intelligence at all to cause addiction, and similarly, AI does not need to be an evil genius to become overused and destructive.
    miyoji · 1791115836 · focus · HN ↗
    > If I sit down to play chess with Magnus Carlsen I can't predict the exact moves he'll use to defeat me, but that's a bad reason to think he won't defeat me
    This is a very bad analogy because chess isn't life. In chess, you aren't allowed to do whatever you want. There are rules. I know for a fact that Magnus Carlsen won't beat me using checkers moves and he won't beat me by pulling out a gun and telling me to resign. Magnus Carlsen's skill at chess leading to his victory in chess is not a valid analogy here.
    You could have infinite superintelligence and still die inside a locked room to which you have no key. "Superintelligence" is not a magic solution to every problem, you can constrain any superintelligence with any unsolvable problem.
    derektank · 1791118201 · focus · HN ↗
    I’m not sure how you came to believe there aren’t rules in life, but there absolutely are. As you point out, there are physical constraints on everything and if you find yourself in a concrete box with nothing but a DGX H100 or at the bottom of the wrong gravity well, there’s nothing you can do. Checkmate.
    This goes both ways. You absolutely can constrain an AI system by “putting it in a box”. The point parent comment was making is that, such a device is borderline useless for its creators. Why invest trillions in capital on a system that can’t even accept input from the internet. So you set it up with an ethernet connection. And this is good, but you have a hardware failure at the concrete room data center. That’s pretty annoying for your customers, so you install some doors (with electronic key codes of course) and give a bunch of (trusted, vetted) people access to deal with those. And this is fine, but it turns out some of your customers are having latency issues so you build more data centers with more humans granted access to copies of the intelligent system. And this makes people happy but to get a faster feedback loop your customers ask to let the AI system have more permissions to the system they’re operating on. And they come with billion dollar checks, and the system hasn’t harmed anyone yet, so you say, “Okay.” And now you find yourself where we are today where AI systems can remotely run arbitrary commands on thousands if not millions of systems, where many individual humans with all of their frailties and idiosyncrasies can physically interact with the hardware running these systems, and where there’s an economic demand to tighten the loop between action in the real world and a response by an AI system. It’s very obvious that the story doesn’t end here, so where does it stop?
    miyoji · 1791119414 · focus · HN ↗
    > I’m not sure how you came to believe there aren’t rules in life, but there absolutely are.
    This is why I fucking hate commenting on this website. You know exactly what I meant but you insisted on writing this bullshit.
    derektank · 1791126570 · focus · HN ↗
    I knew you weren’t dumb enough to think that the physical laws of the universe don’t exist, so yes, that sentence was a bit of rhetorial flourish. But I genuinely don’t understand what point it is you thought you were making and your entire argument seemed a bit muddled.
    segfaltnh · 1791116668 · focus · HN ↗
    Are u ok?
  3. azan_ · 1791113960 · focus · HN ↗
    People like him have actual imagination and can name few scenarios where sudo kill -9 pid wouldn't work. It appears lack of imagination is something you and LLMs both share.
    lolpplrdum · 1791114182 · focus · HN ↗
    imagination != intelligence
    You can be imaginative but incredibly stupid in your conclusions.
    What you and he does share is simple ability to think things through to the extent of understanding how ridiculous the AI will kill us scenario will be. If you just thought for a moment what would have to happen for AI to somehow kill us and keep itself alive, the so called AI would realise it cant exist without us. But AI isnt even smart, its just a knowledgebase with great autocorrect powers. But keep doomsdaying bro. Im sure youre right.
    azan_ · 1791115120 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm sorry but in this comment you did not make a single argument for your position.
    > What you and he does share is simple ability to think things through to the extent of understanding how ridiculous the AI will kill us scenario will be.
    Why is it ridiculous?
    > If you just thought for a moment what would have to happen for AI to somehow kill us and keep itself alive, the so called AI would realise it cant exist without us.
    Why would it realise that, why wouldn't it exist without us and why would it care?
    > But AI isnt even smart, its just a knowledgebase with great autocorrect powers.
    Ah yes, the stochastic parrot, gotcha.
    lolpplrdum · 1791124305 · focus · HN ↗
    Who do you work for Azan? You seem to be very insistent that AI will kill us?
    But let me entertain your ignorance and low IQ for a bit.
    Do you think AI is capable of building ASML machines which produce the chips for AI in clean rooms while shipping the pure helium required to operate those clean rooms? Do you even know anything about these supply chains? I do.
    Do you think a glorified knowledge base that can predict text very well is anywhere near close this level of intelligence? ITs not and wont be, not for a 100 years, not for 200 years if not ever.
    So tell me, who do you work for? Why are you so invested in AI killing us theory? What do you get out of it?
    azan_ · 1791125094 · focus · HN ↗
    Please refrain from ad personam arguments and provide actual support for your point of view. Everything you've written so far is just an assumption.
    > Do you think AI is capable of building ASML machines which produce the chips for AI in clean rooms while shipping the pure helium required to operate those clean rooms? Do you even know anything about these supply chains? I do.
    Today? No. In few years or decades? If progress does not plateau (and we don't know if it will plateau) then obviously yes.
    > Do you think a glorified knowledge base that can predict text very well is anywhere near close this level of intelligence? ITs not and wont be, not for a 100 years, not for 200 years if not ever.
    And why do you say it won't be? Again - assumption with zero support.
    > So tell me, who do you work for? Why are you so invested in AI killing us theory? What do you get out of it?
    I'll repeat what I've said in other comment:
    "> you seem to be very invested in AI wanting to kill us.
    Quite contrary - I wish AI did not exist or at least that the progress would plateau.
    > I Wonder why?
    Because I don't want to die.
    > Tell us who you work for.
    I suspect you want to imply I work for OAI or other lab - I don't. If I did, I wonder why would I want to lie* that technology I develop could kill my investors. I could ask who YOU work for - what interest do you have in downplaying dangers of AI?
    * here we assume that people who say AI could be extremely dangerous are lying and not actually believing it - personally I believe that they don't lie and actually believe it. Why do they keep working on this technology then? Read mails between Musk and Altman from decade ago."
    lolpplrdum · 1791131892 · focus · HN ↗
    The fact that you think AI will, in a few decades, be capable of building ASML EUV machines, including supporting the supply chains and the fabs that make all that happen, means I can rest my case. Evolution will take care of people like you before AI does. You need to see a therapist, stress less, and find another industry to be involved in. You are not made for tech buddy.
    azan_ · 1791132379 · focus · HN ↗
    > The fact that you think AI will, in a few decades, be capable of building ASML EUV machines, including supporting the supply chains and the fabs that make all that happen, means I can rest my case.
    AI solved millenium problem and multiple problems that resisted mathematical efforts for decades. I rest my case. I'm sorry but you are clearly in denial. I get it, I really do, I would like AI to be as useless and weak as you try to make it out to be, but unfortunately it's pure copium that's in conflict with reality. I suggest you find another industry to be involved in - there's plenty of areas where reality does not matter that could be better fit for you. Or well, if it makes you feel any better keep lying to yourself that it's just stochastic parrot or that progress has plateaued or whatever new copium you come up with.
    lolpplrdum · 1791135567 · focus · HN ↗
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_priority_controversy" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_priority...
    Continue to live in your delusion Azan. OpenAI didnt solve it and nor would I trust a snake like Sam Altman but the fact that you do, speaks volumes. There is a lot more to story than you know but you seem like a very creative and imaginative person that can come up with predictions that will come true.
    The fact that most researchers call LLM 'stochastic parrots' and also agree that they wont lead to AGI, and that the only ones who think they do have a commercial interest in parading that story, should be enough for you but hey, I am sure you know better. I work in the industry, what do you do?
    Continue brother in your world of delusion, you must be fun at parties.
    dang · 1791138810 · focus · HN ↗
    You also broke the site guidelines more than once in this thread. We need people to follow the rules here even when others (such as the account we banned) are doing worse!
    If you wouldn't mind reviewing <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. I realize it's not always easy when provoked, but it's particularly important under those conditions.
    azan_ · 1791138920 · focus · HN ↗
    Sorry about that!
    dang · 1791138694 · focus · HN ↗
    We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines.
    Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with!
    <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  4. heaney-555 · 1791114062 · focus · HN ↗
    >It cant. he is right.
    What are you talking about? Have you used AI in the past 3 years?
    <a href="https://chatgpt.com/share/6ac23b45-79e8-83eb-8de6-1bbd72892898" rel="nofollow">https://chatgpt.com/share/6ac23b45-79e8-83eb-8de6-1bbd728928...
    >It can't even modify a picture the way you want it.
    Which of the many AI image models is "it"? And have you tried using an agent that has the capability to leverage a combination of manual edits (ImageMagick) and imagegen to achieve what you ask?
  5. azkalam · 1791115078 · focus · HN ↗
    The AI will invent an external threat and convince us it is real. Then it will receive more resources and control in fighting that threat. A valuable ally, on the face of it. Then it will be in charge.
    exe34 · 1791117169 · focus · HN ↗
    It just has to copy the MIC.
5. LoganDark · 1791112315 · focus · HN ↗
  I keep wanting to use LLMs for creative writing that heavily involves physics like this, and it's been a definite struggle to say the least. I recently discovered that Gemini 3.1 Pro is the first model I've found to clearly beat the original November 2022 ChatGPT release in terms of implied physics. Man did the world really take its sweet time to get back here. I think it will continue to be a struggle until another genuine architectural shift happens -- it's still not anywhere close to perfect, just better.
  1. wartywhoa23 · 1791113407 · focus · HN ↗
    I also would like to pursue creative writing with LLMs. Could you recommend any drug to reduce the cognitive dissonance of making creativity and LLM coexist in one sentence?
    LoganDark · 1791132028 · focus · HN ↗
    LSD is great!
    Jokes aside, no I'm not saying anything about creativity and LLM coexisting in one sentence. I genuinely try to use them for writing and I genuinely run into issues with other models missing details, and misunderstanding poses, or anatomy, or directionality, etc. I'm not hating on them for anything related to the term LLM (or creativity) but rather for the real issues that I've seen myself using them personally.
    So I'm saying Gemini 3.1 Pro is the best I've seen because it seems to be a decent bit better than frontier models at this. Genuinely. It seems better able to transfer concepts into less traditional areas, which is important when say, you have entirely non-human characters? (Which I always do.) A lot of models get stupid incredibly quickly in that case because they were trained with humans.
    wartywhoa23 · 1791133356 · focus · HN ↗
    > LSD is great!
    It is.
    It showed me that all human creativity and art is an attempt to express the indescribable Otherness in words, which always fails, and even the word "describe" in Russian literally translates as "write around" ("о-писывать"), and its close relative "define" means limiting, assigning an end to something infinite, thus leaving the essence outside of words.
    Now, LLMs operate totaly within words and hence will always be a parody of art.
    hardbass · 1791134437 · focus · HN ↗
    So is that what it is? Words are another muddle btw unless you make it clear you only mean natural language and not any alphabet in general. Turing computers are also languages and as far as we know, can express anything in the universe. If you think you get some superpowers from drugs that enable you to access something outside your sense organs and brains input, that non drug users don't, show it. Eg if you think you can read what is happening in another room without any signal or leakage from there, you are free to demonstrate it. As far as we know drugs are not magic.
    LoganDark · 1791138527 · focus · HN ↗
    We do know that LSD affects brain connectivity/activity in a way that you absolutely can make new insights. It's not magic, but sometimes you just need the right kind of push to realize certain things. One of the reasons there's research into psilocybin therapy nowadays.
    hardbass · 1791140485 · focus · HN ↗
    Of course, drugs affect ones brain workings, I have no issues with claiming that.
    wartywhoa23 · 1791138663 · focus · HN ↗
    > show it
    I explicitly tell you that there are things (in fact, it's a single thing, fractally generating everything else) that can't be shown, expressed, or otherwise be reduced into language, and you keep demanding to show it, while in fact staring at it your whole life and failing to see.
    Psychedelics (not "drugs" as you try to smear them) are just one way of the many to see it, but in the modern way of living, also almost the only one available.
    LoganDark · 1791139035 · focus · HN ↗
    Psychedelics by definition are drugs and drugs are not a smear, they're a specifier. I do still have issue with them implying you need some sort of extra-sensory perception to make insights that look to follow just fine to me, but maybe I am just already enlightened or some shit from taking LSD all those times before.
    hardbass · 1791140460 · focus · HN ↗
    I am not smearing drugs. Your difficulty is proving somehow this beyond language thing exists. A drug affects your brain, lsd inhibits certain negative feedbacks in the brain, positive feedback tends to cause chaos which usually manifests as fractals. As of yet our brains are known to not follow any special laws beyond known physics, which is turing computable. If you think there is something "beyond" you have to prove it to an external observer.
    LoganDark · 1791140655 · focus · HN ↗
    Never seen this description of LSD inhibiting negative feedback in the brain. I've mostly seen reports that it increases connectivity in the white matter region. Have any resources about it?
    Anyway, I think what they're saying is that if you train a model purely on generating language, it'll lack many of the things about human brains that result in the language they generate. The process can matter more than the result for language (specifically for creativity and art, too), so it follows that a model trained purely on the output is going to be missing something more fundamental, even when it does produce coherent language. This matches up with my LLM experience so far.
    hardbass · 1791141211 · focus · HN ↗
    I am not a mathematician or neurologist so do not take my word as granted but look into the work of LSD's interactions with the thalamus and 5-HT2A receptors. It is my understanding that LSD turns off an otherwise inhibited system so the feedback loop of certain neural signals goes from decaying to exciting leading to a highly sensitive state. But you should go ask a neurologist for better understanding.
    wartywhoa23 · 1791140940 · focus · HN ↗
    God bless you, my friend.
    hardbass · 1791141279 · focus · HN ↗
    If you cannot prove something beyond known physics (don't have to develop the theory of it, just demonstrate any phenomenon), then I am afraid your ideas would have to be deemed bogus for now.
    wartywhoa23 · 1791143136 · focus · HN ↗
    I'll pray for your soul as many times as you repeat this, so it's in your best interest to go on. Three prayers already granted.
    hardbass · 1791141777 · focus · HN ↗
    You didn't clarify whether you meant language as in natural language or any Turing language.
  2. TristanDaCunha · 1791115318 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you have an example prompt I can try where frontier LLMs will stumble on physics?
    LoganDark · 1791132503 · focus · HN ↗
    I do not, but I think it's a combination of non-human characters and asking for very specifically detailed physical descriptions of pulling and movement forces, etc. Many of even the most recent frontier models miss details that aren't in my prompt, so I still have to do things like name the other side of a physical interaction so that the model will know what goes together, or describe what leverage means so that the model will describe the effects of that rather than only what it's being used for, etc.
    Gemini 3.1 Pro hasn't needed that pretty much at all, which is impressive compared to how much I've learned other models need it. Somehow it's able to mostly handle that stuff itself without needing the constant manual reminders and hand-holding. It still misses the occasional one or two things but it's way better than other models missing entire classes of things constantly.
    danielmarkbruce · 1791176562 · focus · HN ↗
    I'll try to find it - but recently one of the GPT 5 models stumbled badly on a baseball pitching physics problem. It continually screwed up because in the problem I gave the pitcher was left handed (my kid is a left handed pitcher). I wasn't even trying to get it to stumble but wow was it bad. I had to correct it over and over again.
  3. Bolwin · 1791135233 · focus · HN ↗
    Try fable. I haven't used it since they dropped it from the pro plan, but when I did, fable 5 casually dropped such advanced electrical and orbital mechanics knowledge in my story that I had to stop and ask it to explain
    semi-extrinsic · 1791142933 · focus · HN ↗
    I think OP doesn't want techno-babble, but coherent and causal interactions of everyday objects in their story.
    Mary packed the binoculars in chapter 3, therefore she may use them on the train in chapter 6.
6. throwaway27448 · 1791116976 · focus · HN ↗
  [delayed]
7. mdp2021 · 1791117069 · focus · HN ↗
  > never be able to learn basic common-sense physics
  And has it at this stage, within in-depth take of said "learning", foundationally?
  I have not been able to properly check the studies for a long time now, but I remain unaware of achieved solutions on the problem of reliably referencing a world model out of a language model - that "counting the 'r's in 'raspberry'" be not guessing, not memory, but actually counting.
  1. ethbr1 · 1791117362 · focus · HN ↗
    My perspective is that the addition of thinking loops to models allows sufficiently advanced ones to approximate world models.
    Incredibly inefficiently because of the recursive loops ("Wait, the object is on the table. I should think about this more deeply..."), and likely instantly surpassed by large world models if/when those are shipped, but effectively enough vs non-thinking models.
    hyperman1 · 1791119697 · focus · HN ↗
    This sounds like a human trying to reason about quantum mechanics. We als simplify to newtonian for day to day tasks.
    kurthr · 1791128890 · focus · HN ↗
    I like this analogy. Both GenRel and QM are well beyond our experience, and although there is some intuition that comes from working with the equations over time, it is bizarre and "just calculate" often gets the correct answer faster.
    Picking the right tool or model is like picking the right problem to work on. It's actually quite hard (often you can't just try them all), but without it you will be incredibly inefficient and occasionally, fundamentally wrong.
    All models are wrong, but some are useful. -Box
    red75prime · 1791121336 · focus · HN ↗
    LeCun calling them "world models" is a high-level description of the desired functionality. They are Joint Embedding Predictive Architectures. They might produce more useful world models, but it's yet to be seen.
  2. cavoirom · 1791120561 · focus · HN ↗
    counting 'r' in 'raspberry' to the LLM is similar to 4-dimension space to human. Their world's unit is token, not character, although they could use indirect method such as "run code" to find out. It will stay that way until they change the fundamental of the token that the LLM can perceive characters.
    estearum · 1791121325 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not even fair to call "run code" to be indirect compared to what a human would do. The word raspberry has no Rs in it in human language either. We have a written representation of it, which we can then write down either in our head or on paper, and then we can "run the algorithm" of counting each of the letters.
    Nothing intrinsically more or less direct about the LLM's method than ours.
    cavoirom · 1791122182 · focus · HN ↗
    I could argue LLM only have "token" as their perceivable dimension, compare to human multiple senses as the physic perceivable dimension and a brain with many other dimension of "learning" and "thinking". In spoken language, we may not have 'r' but in written we have, both spoken language and written language are learned skills.
    azornathogron · 1791123016 · focus · HN ↗
    Is "token" a directly perceivable unit for the LLM? If you ask it "how many tokens are in this sentence?" can it count them (again, not guessing or making a tool call)?
    I've never tried it and it might take some thought and effort to conduct an experiment to find out properly, but I would be interested in the answer.
    lawandjustice · 1791123924 · focus · HN ↗
    I dont think so. This is akin to asking a person, what is the frequency of the light hitting your eye when watching a leaf for example. You either know the (approximate) answer by knowing the frequency of green, or use a tool to measure it. If the LLM gives the correct answer it is either.guessing based on intution(and this intuition is based on pairs of word to tokenization length in text form in training data), writing code(or executing a tokenizer) or running a tokenizer mentally (reasoning via CoT).
    mdp2021 · 1791149435 · focus · HN ↗
    Not the point: the simulated intelligence in this context needs to create proper representation. It is not a matter of what it sees but of what it can see.
    scratcheee · 1791123564 · focus · HN ↗
    You could argue in return that humans only have electro-chemistry as our one perceivable dimension. We only indirectly perceive light through the signals our eyes send to our brains.
    In my mind agi is pretty much by definition a virtual machine, so the mechanisms behind thought are only relevant for the sake of efficiency (ie you can argue that LLMs make a poor basis for intelligence because tokens and natural language are a poor way to encode the world, but if you can run it on a big enough computer to counteract the inherent wasteful virtualisation then who really cares how it works under the hood?)
    cavoirom · 1791130382 · focus · HN ↗
    So LLM and human all have 1 dimenion perceivable signal, just LLM is 240p, and human is 8K in resolution, that's why we have 'r' in our signal, LLM still have 'r' in their signal, just because of the "low resolution", raspberry wasn't encoded with so many 'r' as in human signal.
    I will stop here before our analogies go too far.
    [deleted] · 1791125592 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    omneity · 1791125703 · focus · HN ↗
    I’m working on this problem using a vocab-free, byte-based approach. It’s definitely solvable.
    <a href="https://huggingface.co/posts/omarkamali/593639295164067" rel="nofollow">https://huggingface.co/posts/omarkamali/593639295164067
    <a href="https://huggingface.co/blog/omarkamali/tokenization" rel="nofollow">https://huggingface.co/blog/omarkamali/tokenization
    lern_too_spel · 1791133474 · focus · HN ↗
    I used to think byte level tokenization was the answer, but humans also think at a word level and only reevaluate the words at a character level when asked. The solution to better tokenization across languages is likely to be learned tokenization. Here is one attempt I have seen: <a href="https://github.com/SamD770/bitter-lesson-tokenization" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/SamD770/bitter-lesson-tokenization
    mdp2021 · 1791148580 · focus · HN ↗
    Careful: the problem is very certainly ___not___ counting letters. That is only a telling way to check "is the NN checking or not?". We demand that NNs for consultancy tasks check, strictly.
    kevhito · 1791130750 · focus · HN ↗
    How many 'r's are there in the next 30 seconds of this [1] song?
    [1]: <a href="https://youtu.be/l7vRSu_wsNc?si=SndkB6GBaRyhvNNA&t=61" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/l7vRSu_wsNc?si=SndkB6GBaRyhvNNA&t=61
    mdp2021 · 1791149145 · focus · HN ↗
    I hope you understand: it is a core point that systems that answer questions must have the ability to internally represent the objects they assess in a way that allows reliability. Whatever the object.
  3. Version467 · 1791121712 · focus · HN ↗
    LeCun's argument wasn't about the definition of learning though. He stated that they would never get these common sense things correct because they weren't sufficiently part of the training data. A statement that we can hopefully all agree has been thoroughly refuted.
    bonzini · 1791123352 · focus · HN ↗
    As of a few months ago they still have trouble, with low thinking, at the "should I drive to a car wash that is 100 m away" kind of question.
    BobbyJo · 1791125334 · focus · HN ↗
    It's a nonsensical question to ask, and how an LLM answers gives 0 signal.
    If you were home and a family member asked you that question, you'd probably criticise the question rather than answering. LLM are RLHF'd into being milk-toast helpers that just try to answer questions like that with no criticism.
    This is all beside the fact that the world of AI has changed pretty dramatically in the last few months.
    names_are_hard · 1791125718 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    BobbyJo · 1791176948 · focus · HN ↗
    TIL. I feel like I've learned this a few times now, so we'll see if it sticks this time.
    daveguy · 1791125784 · focus · HN ↗
    It is so nonsensical because it has such an obvious answer. The answer is so obvious, in fact, that one answer can be considered nonsense and the other common sense.
    BobbyJo · 1791176910 · focus · HN ↗
    I disagree pretty strongly. If someone asked "Should I drive to the carwash?", the most obvious response, and the one nearly everyone would give, is a question: "why are you going to the car wash?" because asking the question implies you don't need the car with you.
    frrrree · 1791128792 · focus · HN ↗
    This is just a stupid post.
    It’s nonsense to test if a product that is marketed and sold as being able to provide generalised intelligence on demand, does what it says on the tin?
    Check yourself
    joquarky · 1791132883 · focus · HN ↗
    Since you're new here, I'd suggest you read the guidelines for etiquette.
    <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    WaltPurvis · 1791136089 · focus · HN ↗
    It's very unlikely that person is either new or unfamiliar with the guidelines. They almost certainly created a throwaway account specifically because they know the guidelines and want to flout them without consequences. (It seems like there has been an uptick in the number of these kinds of throwaway flame comments. I wonder if HN tracks that?)
    SpicyLemonZest · 1791128903 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    lern_too_spel · 1791132842 · focus · HN ↗
    Low thinking is an artificial constraint. It can fail spectacularly on things that aren't in the training data.
    keeda · 1791136205 · focus · HN ↗
    Simply appending “check your assumptions” to the question fixed it even back then: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47040530">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47040530
    Similarly for Apple’s “red herring” paper, simply adding a generic caveat to “disregard irrelevant factors” (without specifying which ones) restored performance even in the weaker local llama models back then.
    The flaw was not in the reasoning; the flaw seems to be simply that the assumptions we make are often different from the assumptions it makes. I wonder if that might be a fundamental underlying cause of misalignment.
    randysalami · 1791126127 · focus · HN ↗
    I thought it was more because of fundamental limitations in the architecture. As in, no matter the training data, it could not be consistently and generally represented
    intended · 1791126331 · focus · HN ↗
    No?
    This is always the issues in the discussions.
    There’s the outcomes camp (objectivists?), which points at the things LLMs can do.
    Then there’s the process methods camp, which talks about what is actually going on.
    If you only care about the outcome, then the process does t matter.
    If you are talking about what is happening, what the underlying mechanics and science of it is, then the process matters.
    These models aren’t thinking. They simulate cognition well enough to do useful work in several fields and domains.
    Both are true.
    IshKebab · 1791131534 · focus · HN ↗
    > These models aren’t thinking.
    They are for any definition of the word that makes any kind of sense. I'm sure you have a contorted definition that magically only includes humans though...

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.