Yann LeCun

Calls for a global A.I. regulator modelled on the IAEA are misguided. Nuclear technology is a narrow, slow‑moving domain with obvious materials to track and a small set of state actors; A.I. is a broad, fast‑moving field with millions of researchers and developers worldwide. A U.N.-led, IAEA‑style body that ‘oversees’ compute‑intensive A.I. would be unworkable in practice and harmful in principle: it would freeze progress, entrench incumbents, and starve open research — all while failing to stop bad actors who won’t participate. What we need instead is open science, open models, and targeted rules for concrete harms. Safety and robustness should be advanced by more eyes on the code and more researchers able to test and improve systems — not by a centralized global authority trying to police computation itself. (2023) source Unverified

AI could theoretically replace humans, but it is unlikely due to societal resistance. Humans would remain in control, effectively becoming the 'boss' of superintelligent AI systems. [...] He downplayed fears of a doomsday scenario caused by AI, labeling them as sci-fi clichés, and argued that current AI advancements are not close to achieving superintelligence. He suggested that to mitigate misuse and unreliability in AI, the focus should be on creating better AI systems with common sense and reasoning capabilities. (2025) source Unverified