upvote

points

by WheelsAtLarge1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby mellab21 days ago|
[-]
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” ?
reply
upvoteby jswelker23 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
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.
reply
upvoteby 0xDEAFBEAD22 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
"Bill Gates: A.I. ‘Makes Nuclear Weapons Look Like Nothing’ | The Ezra Klein Show"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_156w0aYtU

reply
upvoteby jswelker22 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby stratos12312 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> 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 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."

reply
upvoteby jswelker6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Still not existential risk. A bit hyperbolic I admit.
reply
upvoteby WheelsAtLarge23 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
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 to stop it.
reply
upvoteby georgemcbay1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Yeah, for context:

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 currently or in the foreseeable future just seems laughable at this point.

reply
upvoteby toss123 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
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.

reply