Safety
(1/7) I'd like to provide some additional context for the remarks that can be found in this interview. (2/7) My discomfort with the attentio…
(1/7) I'd like to provide some additional context for the remarks that can be found in this interview. (2/7) My discomfort with the attention being paid to existential risk---and with the ongoing domi
(1/7) I'd like to provide some additional context for the remarks that can be found in this interview. (2/7) My discomfort with the attention being paid to existential risk---and with the ongoing dominance of the public discussion of such risks by a few so-called thought leaders---is that there's an elephant in the room that is being missed. That elephant is the effect of all of this discussion on young people, and indeed the effect---beginning with social media a decade ago---of information technology on young lives broadly speaking. (3/7) I recently read an interview by Jill Lepore in which she reports on discussions that she had recently with a group of college students: "They had just three things to say. One, social media completely destroyed their childhoods. Two, AI is destroying their college education and their likely prospects for employment. And three, what the hell are we all doing?" To add a fourth bullet that I've heard in similar discussions: "I'm not going to have children, because the existential risk is just too high." (4/7) Please contemplate such a statement, those of you who think that it's OK that the public, widely diffused, discussion coming from seemingly authoritative figures is so adamant about existential risk. (5/7) Let me add that I have little interest in a debate about what "superintelligence" might mean, or whether we're currently seeing the emergence of superintelligence. For what it's worth, I would certainly agree that the solution of extremely challenging math problems (for example) exhibits a very impressive form of intelligence, although I would want to argue that such intelligence is impossible to dissociate from the collective of humans that provided data to the machine learning system (which itself has become a kind of collective). (6/7) Such philosophical debates are entertaining and even important, but when they then head in the direction of "when such superintelligence emerges, there's a good chance that it will want to kill all humans", I say "science fiction". Again, I don't think that it's bad to consider such thoughts, but I strongly believe that it's bad for society, and especially young people, for such thoughts, unaccompanied by any serious real-world analysis, to become a dominant form of discourse of the era. (7/7) We are damaging human lives, and the consequences of that damage will no doubt be a major theme of the next several decades.
Related
- this was wild amounts of disinformation / fear mongering / the stupidest interview ive ever seen: 1) ai did NOT hack huggingface on its own …
- I spent some time trying to distill all the complex factors impacting open models -- economics, capabilities, distribution, policy, etc. -- …
- Some thoughts on Dario’s post: 1. Dario does not actually address Gavin Baker’s account of what he said – something he could easily deny if …
Source: Yann LeCun (X) | 2026-10-12