‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

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

403 points · 765 comments · Anon84

  1. edot · · 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. Barrin92 · · 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 · · focus · HN ↗
        Wasn't Bill Gates mostly just saying terrorists could use AI to build a bioweapon? That sounds legit to me.
        1. Barrin92 · · 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

          1. jswelker · · 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?

            1. Marha01 · · 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.

              1. pixl97 · · 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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.