Yann LeCun

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 because it’s too dangerous to put it in the hands of everybody. That would lead to a very bad future in which all of our information diet is controlled by a small number of companies who proprietary systems. (2024) source Verified

Human feedback for open source LLMs needs to be crowd-sourced, Wikipedia style.
It is the only way for LLMs to become the repository of all human knowledge and cultures. source Unverified

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