How easily smart people convince themselves of what they want to be true with zero self-awareness makes me much more fearful of what's to come.
>other side gives, imho, convoluted arguments and asks for them to be proven wrong (as opposed to trying to prove themselves right).
The question is what should our default stance be until proven otherwise? I submit it is not to continue building the potentially world-ending technology.
When you see a gun on the table, what do you do? You assume its loaded until proven otherwise. For some reason, those who imagine AI will usher in some tech-utopia not only assume the gun is empty, but that pulling the trigger will bring forth endless prosperity. It's rather insane actually.
That’s not a rational argument for why we should be concerned — you merely asserted you were.
Why is catering to your feelings the default position?
The fact is we don't know how current ML actually does what it does, we don't know what we'll have next month, and we wouldn't know how to recognize an AI or AGI if we developed one. The risks and unknowns are high, the default position should be to not develop the technology unless and until someone proves without reasonable doubt why we can and should do it, and how we'll do it safely.
Right, and Yann is arguing the point that AI and LLMs are not or will not be dangerous. Where's his proof? As the parent posters have said, he has none.
LLMs are tools in amplifying individual human intelligence, 100% of automony and will come from their user (human).
Also, even as tools they have fundamental limitations which stem from their autoregressive nature
Your argument, and Yann's, is that AGI, or what you call AGI, is a kind of quasi-intelligent golem that, despite being generally intelligent, doesn't have human-level intelligence. Your claim that it will never be human-equivalent, much less trans-human/ASI, is built into your worldview. It's not a conclusion. It's an assumption on your part.
People like you and Yann can believe that if you want, but you have no evidence, because nobody knows what's required for human-level intelligence. Nobody knows whether some kind of system involving neural nets could develop human-level intelligence or beyond. It could involve different architecture or training methods. There's no assumption by AI doomers that AGI will be achieved by a LLM with more parameters or more or better training data.
The only approach we will be able to claim objectively can produce systems with human-level intelligence is procreation.
Of course over 100 years later we know it's not only possible but manned flight is far more capable than natural flight in almost every metric.
I think this whole quote is riddled with assumptions in this debate.
What is human level? Is it really a "level" or is human level just a local variant in a space of possible intelligence varieties that maybe could be sorted along one dimension of levels of maybe multiple? Can it be super intelligent without being autonomous at all?
I'm not saying that you're wrong in just pointing out where people ought to have a myriad of different assumptions.
https://promptengineering.org/what-are-large-language-model-...
An early GPT-4 test ended up with GPT successfully solving capchas by tricking a TaskRabbit worker into doing it for them [1]. When asked by the worker if it was a robot, GPT decided to lie to the worker and claim it had a visual impairment that made it difficult to solve the puzzle. That sounds like a level of autonomy and social engineering skills that could be concerning to a reasonable person.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/gpt4-openai-chatgpt-taskrabb...
If it asks for the right to vote?
Here you are, trying to "outthink" an AI and speaking as if you understand (both the AI and the world of politics at the very least)! Isn't that silly!
Autonomy and self-sufficiency are not the only ways a system can be dangerous.
But even if this claim were true, ChaosGPT proves that some humans will almost immediately set about using such a non-autonomous tool to create a dangerous autonomous agent. This is my problem with LeCunn, nearly all of his points are trivially refuted by real world observations, yet he keeps repeating them as if they simply must be true.
> Also, even as tools they have fundamental limitations which stem from their autoregressive nature
That's yet another speculative point that LeCunn constantly asserts. Scaling laws have not shown any indication of even approaching a limit.
People dismiss LLMs because they are not embodied, and lack continuous training. That is to come.
So, more Ringo than Lenon?
I only see his posts on Twitter but haven't been impressed.
It is the same with AI/AGI. Anything closed source and having regulatory oversight is useless, decreases innovation, increases bureaucracy and will only serve those who wish to build a “moat” to further their hold on the technology.
Source isn't even the problem, unless you're a billionaire, you can't afford to train the model.
This isn't the wheel, the printing press, the PC, or the public internet, which created opportunities for everyone.
This is pay-to-play that is only affordable to the nation-state the mega-corporation, and the latter might let you play around as a digital sharecropper on their platform, until they cut you off, because they can make more money by having first-party ownership of whatever you built.
Open source would mean someone could see and run the model code locally/independently to create an instance. For an LLM, this is much less insurmountable of an issue in terms of resources needed.
For example, I run a few instances of open source software though my instances' databases are private.
We are still answering questions on LLM/AI scaling. Ya, you might have your cottage industry AI giving out answers on the trickle of information you feed it, but will that even be comparable to one being fed megawatts of power with terabytes of data per second flowing into its databanks?
Hell, there's wars killing tens of thousands of people going on right now, and a ton of money is changing hands making a juicy business for whole industries.