Thread

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

404 points · 770 comments · Anon84

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. 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?
    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.
    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.
    latexr · 1791197410 · focus · HN ↗
    > That is you're completely incapable of
    Do you treat everyone who doesn’t completely subscribe to your views as being incapable of understanding them? Disagreement with a view does not equal inability to understand it.
    > You're falling in the same trap that most humans fall into. (…) Cells have intelligence. (…)
    Ironically, it is you who is falling into the trap of letting the technically correct stand in the way of the useful. A definition of intelligence which is too broad is worthless to the practical matters of the discussion. I was replying within a context, that’s what a conversation is. Like you said, there are scales, and the topic of LLM intelligence at hand is concerned with a particular level, not all of them.
    For sure we can have a conversation within a separate framework, but that is a different conversation. Don’t just come in midway, completely change the parameters, then strut around like a peacock of righteousness who is lord and master of universal truths.
    > many scientists accept (…) and many more are making claims
    This is classic weasel wording¹. You can find “many scientists” to say just about anything. “Many scientists” claim vaccines cause autism and that human actions are not exacerbating climate change.
    > > You, as of so far have given no explanatory evidence of where intelligence emerges from, only "I'll know it when I see it".
    Again, ironic. You completely miss the context, criticise a lot, and do the very thing you’re accusing others of.
    > Go outside of your extremely narrow definition of whatever you think intelligence is and learn more about it.
    I strongly recommend you go outside your extremely narrow definition of other people and learn some humility. To put it bluntly, you’re being a pompous prick. That is no way to change the mind of others, it only gets them on the defensive.
    Are you interested in changing minds or winning arguments? If the former, you’re doing a terrible job. If the latter, then discussing anything with you is devoid of value.
    You seem like a smart person, I have no doubt you can do better.
    I’ll give you a free tip. Replace your first paragraph (the three sentences) with “Intelligence manifests at different scales”. There. Way shorter, says the same thing, doesn’t make assumptions, and leaves the other person open to a conversation.
    ¹ <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.