Yann LeCun

There is nothing qualitatively different between the previous technological revolutions and this one, [...] It's just another set of tools that makes us more efficient.

Current LLMs are intrinsically unsafe, but with world models, guardrail objectives can be implemented — so by construction, they will not knowingly produce actions that will produce dangerous results.

There is no such thing as an intelligence explosion. There is no reason AI should become in control just because it is more capable.

[LLMs] don't really understand the physical world. They don't really have persistent memory. They can't really reason and they certainly can't plan.

Making technology developers liable for bad uses of products built from their technology will simply stop technology development,

I see the danger of this concentration of power through proprietary AI systems as a much bigger danger than everything else. What works against this is people who think that for reasons of security, we should keep AI systems under lock and key becaus...

The question that people are debating is whether it makes sense to regulate research and development of AI. And I don't think it does.

My first reaction to [the letter] is that calling for a delay in research and development smacks me of a new wave of obscurantism,

The question that people are debating is whether it makes sense to regulate research and development of AI. And I don't think it does.

The question that people are debating is whether it makes sense to regulate research and development of AI. And I don't think it does.

The question that people are debating is whether it makes sense to regulate research and development of AI. And I don't think it does.