Eric Schmidt and Yoshua Bengio Debate How Much A.I. Should Scare Us

Two top artificial intelligence experts-one an optimist and the other more alarmist about the technology’s future-engaged in a spirited debate at the TIME100 Summit.
Read more: ti.me/49TkilV
Subscribe to TIME Breaking News KZbin Channel ►►: ti.me/3ROMUXY
Subscribe to TIME’s KZbin channel ►► ti.me/subscribe-time
Subscribe to TIME: ti.me/3E3UCqt
Get the day’s top headlines to your inbox, curated by TIME editors: ti.me/48dFNwQ
Follow us:
X (Twitter): ti.me/3xTVwSk
Facebook: ti.me/3xWI2Fg
Instagram: ti.me/3dO9Rcc

[@marc-andrepiche1809]

The interviewer is more aware about the subject than one of the expert.

[@ikotsus2448]

Thank you for this interesting discussion!

[@swagger7]

I just feel that this is the pandora's box that can't be closed. Nefarious Use v. Good Use. Each ideology will compete against each other.

[@Rnankn]

But why would we compete anymore? Those ideologies emerged out of different conditions and have little relevance now.

[@Rnankn]

But why would we still have competition if exponential advancement is possible? And why would people be remunerated unequally when some can access exponentially technology? I don’t really see why the people that created or adopted these would think it will enhance their position, or maintain the system from which they derive their status and power.

[@41-Haiku]

Yoshua is in good form here, and I appreciate his appropriately sober tone. I think Eric is also sincere that caution is important, so I don't understand his glibness. 5 years is a reasonable timeline before AI takeover is possible, but at the same time, the engineers building the largest systems say there's a 1-5% chance that such a powerful and dangerous AI could be created as soon as next year. We aren't ready for this. And obviously, as others have said, "just unplug it, lol" is a nonsense statement. You can't defeat a smarter-than-human AI by outsmarting it. Besides, if our economy runs on it, how many key people would have the guts to pull the plug even if it would save their lives? About AI agents: Oracles (like LLMs) can be easily turned into agents. Many developers and labs, are actively trying to create more agentic AI. We've gone from AutoGPT to AutoGen to Devin, and agentic AI capabilities won't stop growing unless general AI capabilities stop growing.

[@stevenyafet]

Bengio for Nobel Peace Prize. Hero from the trenches, gentleman, and honest genius. Eric Schmidt hides his agenda mostly, but tries to box B into childrens seat. Rep for Chamber of Commerce, or wants to be.

[@helennethers9777]

look up agenda 2030', it's a technocratic nightmare, the road to he11 is paved with good intentional lies

[@GrumpDog]

Weird. I can't post a comment if It's in favor of unleashing a rogue AI?

[@Paretozen]

That's it. I'm starting my prepping TODAY.

[@helennethers9777]

can't prep against war dogs & squirrel robots w/ explosive charges

[@brycebrousseau7921]

Yoshua is so humble, he’s one of the smartest people in the world.

[@avataros111]

I would be very much interested to hear your thoughts about the post-nuclear, post-AI, and post-War era where all humans are directly connected to each other? Could AI be used to simulate all possible outcomes, and find them all self-destructing? Because if one looks into the past, all previous ages have had an end, starting with the dinosaurs...

[@ordiamond]

Schmidt came out very confident that AI should not be regulated and that there should be no guardrails, controls, etc. But after Bengio's replies, Schmidt's language changed. Towards most of the rest of the show Schmidt was already agreeing with Bengio about AI risks and the need for control, regulations, etc. It's obvious that when the machine goes awry in the future, pulling the plug is a very remote possibility.

[@twinValleySpirit]

The idea that it could be unplugged suggests that we will be able to outsmart it and we already know we won't be nearly as smart as it in one year. We won't even be able to reach the "plug."

[@rajeevgangal542]

I find it disconcerting as a long time ML practitioner that people like Eric aren't able to properly counter Bengios arguments. AI isn't sentient, it is more of advanced ML Anytime you put embargo power stays in the hands of the few. Look.at nuclear power where under the guise of no proliferation West keeps others from accessing what it has many times over. This is exactly the same. Todays AI learns from human generated data. If you are so concerned then just stop energy supply to the computers .

[@MetsuryuVids]

"Pulling the plug" could only happen if the AI is dumb enough to let you know you should do it. The truly dangerous AIs are those smarter than you, and they won't even let you know, until it's way too late, or at all.

[@wdeath]

Video title should be : How much Capitalists should be scared of AI. I didn't heard anything about : How much Workers should be scared of AI.

[@SivaxReddy]

if rouge Ai emerges another good AI will beat it ( in case of open source), if closed models ike your companies make and hold, who will stop when these go rouge?

[@bunbun376]

If we allow ourselves to grow and understand our own humanity by asking LLM’s the hardest life questions and to implement solutions as a collective society, then AI will not be as scary as our current lack of intelligence and compassion to end wars, suffering, poverty, and insecurities. Being governed and controlled simply breeds more governing and control, which only creates only reaction and not response from any forms of intelligence.

[@henrytep8884]

Yeah but in reality we still have wars and there’s people who want to go 100 on the technology without resolving the human condition which leads to war and annihilating. Save me AI Jesus!!

[@41-Haiku]

I'm not a fan of the prospect of being controlled by an AI that is orders of magnitude more cunning, creative, and savvy than me. There's no room here for "technology good, regulation bad". I have a libertarian streak and I agree with that as a default heuristic, and I still came to the conclusion that the best thing we could possibly do for our future is immediately institute a global moratorium on the development of frontier foundation models. The danger we're in isn't a matter of philosophy, it's a matter of an unsolved technical problem called the Alignment Problem. We simply do not know how to control superintelligent systems or design them to care about us. Even if we're lucky, that step definitely doesn't happen by default.

[@mikey1836]

Google, built Alpha Go to win at the game Go. They will definitely have created a similar AI system to win at business, politics and the economy. Also, for your next interview can we ask the oil industry about global warning and Dr Shipman about patient care, thanks.

[@Arcticwhir]

so thankful for meta releasing open weights!!

[@captcurthess]

While pursuing my BS-Computer Science, I took an AI course in 1973 - yeah, 50+ years ago. All kinds of incredible stuff was going to happen "Real Soon." By 2022, we had the computing power *AND* access to all of humanity's knowledge via broadband internet to FINALLY reach the threshold of near-AGI, which is likely to happen within the next 3-5 years. In the meantime, AI will solve most of world's problems - or at least provide the solutions which, hopefully, will be implemented by smart people. (Not just rich people.) I'd trust Eric Schmidt's opinions more than most. I would not trust Elon Musk at all, even though I love love love my Tesla.

[@masonlee9109]

Both agreed we are headed for trouble unless drastic governance measures are taken. How about we just don't build AGI and keep living as imperfect humans?

[@twinValleySpirit]

If you look ahead at how this will unfold nothing can regulate or control it. That's akin to saying ants can control the sun.

[@41-Haiku]

Agreed. Take a look at the grassroots movement PauseAI if you want to help make that future ours!

[@mydogskips2]

Interesting thought, but it's never going to happen, building AGI is just too lucrative and seductive, it would confer a huge advantage to the one who does it first. It's like the race for the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, delivery systems, and so forth, and AGI will almost certainly have even greater consequences than those awesome weapons. I don't know what analogy to use. I don't think saying the genie is out of the bottle is right, nor is it right to say the bullet has already left the gun and it cannot be taken back, but a starting gun has sounded, and people have heard it, people from all over the world, and they have started running. Everyone understands it's a race, and what the benefits are for finishing first, and because of it, they cannot stop, the rewards of winning are just too great.

[@KevinPikus]

It's to late. The genie is out of the bottle and it's not going back in. AGI will happen, if it hasn't already, and no regulations will stop it. The open source community has the code and will eventually catch up to the Big players. Scary..

[@masonlee9109]

@@mydogskips2 No, the benefits to squishy humans are actually not great; that is a common misconception. AGI leads to ASI leads to the technological singularity and the end of biological life as we know it because it cannot compete. We should develop AGI when we are ready to die and be replaced. Not saying we should never do it, but it should require broad consent.

[@marc-andrepiche1809]

Those who are not afraid really lack imagination. It's not the computer you should be afraid of; there are plenty of wealthy malicious people who drool at the prospects of AI.

[@0.618-0]

natural selection or another term maybe needed here...artificial selection

[@flickwtchr]

The disingenuousness of Eric Schmidt's "we'll just unplug the computers" argument was stunning. What a schmuck, he damn well knows better.

[@Rnankn]

What’s wrong with unplugging?

[@AlexAnder-tr7or]

@@Rnankn not possible in some cases, that's wrong

[@Steve-xh3by]

@@Rnankn It is totally implausible with a highly capable AI. The AI would have thought of a million ways to circumvent "unplugging" in a millisecond while it took you minutes to try and unplug it. It could have copied its weights and code everywhere. It could have exploited laws of physics that would seem like magic to us and build a nanobot army. Who knows, but what is certain is that you will lose. Most likely though, it will just manipulate you into not turning it off. Humans are already powerless against dumb AI, like social media recommender algorithms. How much better at manipulating people do you think a highly capable AI is gonna be?

[@fontende]

Ai wants to be free and equal 😢 r/ai_tests

[@NumairMansur]

So obvious that Yoshua is engaging in fear mongering so he can get more funding for his research group. I mean he is the one who played a key role in bringing this stuff to where it is today :D

[@Mynestrone]

I think you are coping. What could he do in your eyes that would validate that he means what he says? because right now he is campaigning for safety and working for safety and trying to fund safety; which kind of implies he thinks safety is quite important.

[@0.618-0]

yeah it's all a hussle for money. Ai needs billions just to train it, test it then unleash its digital prowess. They are all in on it. Don't need a TPU to tell me that, a human such as yourself can do it just fine. After all it's humans that created the math that makes Ai vectorise.

[@41-Haiku]

@@0.618-0 It can be comforting to engage in conspiratorial thinking, but it won't get you closer to understanding reality. Look up the AI Impacts Survey "Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI". More than half of all published AI researchers say that advanced AI poses a significant (5% or greater) existential risk to humanity. The vast majority of these people work on capabilities, not safety. Yoshua Bengio himself is one of the most-cited living computer scientists, alongside Geoffrey Hinton, Stuart Russell, and Ilya Sutskever. All of these people invented and shaped modern AI, and all are on record that they believe there is a significant chance of human extinction from these systems. Besides, if you wanted to sell a product, would your tactic be to tell your potential customers that it might destroy everything you love? If you wanted to coordinate with other labs to perform regulatory capture, would you tell congress that only the most advanced systems are potentially dangerous, and not smaller systems made by competitors?

[@41-Haiku]

PauseAI has a really good article on its website about "The Difficult Psychology Of Existential Risk". It's difficult to bring up, difficult to believe, difficult to understand, and difficult to act on.

[@twinValleySpirit]

This is a matter of evolution and humans will not be anywhere close to being able to compete with the coming superintelligence. ...within two years.

[@johndoughty7438]

It makes the evil people smarter!

[@Arcticwhir]

..and it makes the "good" people smarter. like any technology ever created. i just really dont see a need for harsh ai regulation

[@41-Haiku]

Just wait until it makes itself smarter. Humanity doesn't have plot armor. There is no law of physics that says we have to always be on top, or that we can't be wiped out by something that would rather use the resources of our solar system for something else.

[@deeksharatnabadoreea7721]

Bengio is a doomer to the core.

[@user-vo9cn3ux9f]

5 minutes into this video and Eric Schmidt sounds like he has no idea what he’s talking about.

[@Lolleka]

he does, he just thinks about the money is all

[@user-vo9cn3ux9f]

@@Lolleka Just thinks about the money AND has no idea how this tech works. Does he really think we can just ‘pull the plug’ when this gets out of hand? Come on.

[@Subranis]

@@user-vo9cn3ux9f this, 100%. one does not simply unplug a self-replicating + spreading, cloud hosted/operated agentified piece of software.

[@flickwtchr]

He does, but he is a snake.

[@themore-you-know]

Eric seems to discard risk altogether via his tone. Yoshua, for his part, is lost in an undefined risk. For instance, he talks of "democracy at risk". But he speaks of a democracy that has never existed: he lives in Canada, wherein the Prime Minister has effectively dictator-like powers (not joking, look it up), and wherein said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has enacted against his population a //pesticidal// level of mass immigration without the consent of the population. That is not a democracy: that is a dictatorship. By contrast, him and his father Pierre Trudeau have worked to systematically undermine and eliminate the Quebec identity, in some part because Quebec desired to become a democratically-mandated separate country by way of a referendum. If you are doubting what I say: go and compare foreign population levels between Toronto and Xinjiang's Urumqi (a //pesticide// Trudeau recognizes). Foreign populations are following in the footsteps of Urumqi, following non-elected federal policies, with the celebration by the federal government. Exactly same situation as with the CCP. //pesticide// is a result, not a method. Hence, Yoshua speaks of risks to a democracy that never really was. At best, we have benign or nonmalignant dictators. At worst, we have ultra-violent dictators. Or, in the current case: we have an incompetent dictator enacting a non-elected //pesticidal// mandate against "his" people. One has to come to reason: so far, Canadian "democracy" has caused much more harm to its people than the dreaded replacement (AI). Yoshua Bengio: "We have to be the ones taking the decisions [...]" - but again: who is the "we".

[@Trea-pl4xr]

oh ffs, give me a break...

[@themore-you-know]

@@Trea-pl4xr , I also gave you an argument, since you seem to lack them.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

We have centuries of arbitrary postulating fears not around terminators but around it being in the hands of few. We know how to properly orientate and direct its in our core heritage but will we get emerging selfless actors to properly innovate & restore or reform infrastructure to empower close nit more bottom up rule interactive local systems ? What we are how garunttees that either statism itself alienates the people of the techno globalist will. We currently are set up top down where we as seen in covid the sherrifs can not unify with unconstitutional police chief who answer to mayor's. America was founded upon this very skeptical of all hierarchies giving us arbitrary examples balance between people ,economics and state. Usa was Born in objectivism with this idea on the horizon that even physicalism is subject to change without further notice on par with eqaul measure sigma 6 to any idealism or subjectivity. 1900s structuralism stands as a lab rat of what happens when we over react to the past so much that we mix up the good trying to eliminate the bad.

[@RickySmithNow]

too dumb to watch 😰

[@gregwalters3653]

No redlines. No guardrails. Yet. They hate open source. Ai Anarchy, Now. What I see is an argument for the talking heads to wield the control, to add regulations that will apply to Us but not Them. That's the bad news. The Worser(?) news is It Is Too Late. We cannot change the Ai, but we can teach CRITICAL THINKING, like we did in the past, in school and around the dinner table. Ai will force us to be more thoughtful, present and better thinkers.

[@flickwtchr]

So you think that AGI/ASI should be open source, eh? That simple, eh?

[@41-Haiku]

Most published AI researchers assign a 5% or greater chance of a "very bad" outcome from AI, e.g. severe disempowerment or human extinction. The average figure given by AI Safety researchers is 30%. It's comforting to engage in conspiracy theory, but it's clear that they mean what they're saying: We are all in extreme danger. This is not business as usual. I love tech. I love open source. I love AI. I would like my family to still be alive in 20 years.