Yann LeCun says Dario Amodei "knows nothing about AI effects on jobs"
timesofindia.indiatimes.comHe argued that AI systems are already capable of tackling genuinely complex challenges.
And they are already capable of making a genuine mess of things --- particularly over the long term.
Some AI models are sorta OK at writing code. None of them are very good at maintaining it. Straightening out the mess that AI makes is going to be even harder and more costly after the labor market for developers retracts.
Honestly, I can say the same thing about some of my coworkers.
Your co-workers can easily be replaced with more competent ones at your employer's discretion.
Can he do the same with AI?
Doesn't matter anyway what exactly they are saying.
On one side you can interpolate in what direction it can go, than you can also add the general speed we are currently seeying and then you can try it out yourself.
The conclusion?
1. its clear that currently its critical to be aware of whats going on. With this you can act sooner or be part of this
2. if it hits hard but not too hard, you might have an advantage because you know how to use it
3. if its stalls you can reduce your effort in this area
“Listen to the economists about the economy, not us” sounds reasonable on its own, but the names LeCun lists are all in the lower/modest AI capabilities camp (and there are economists modeling under the assumption of higher capabilities), so it looks like a thinly veiled proxy for more unresolvable bickering over future AI capabilities predictions.
I don't understand why debates on "AI effect on economy" are switching to "how good AI will be". It's not about "is technology capable" but about market response. and it's so random and unpredictable, so heavily depends on the sentiment, economic conditions, regulations.
I disagree, Anthropic has data to deduct and predict probably more accurately than experts, maybe not the best experts, but at least average ones.
Is psychohistory a thing now? They are just another actor, for sure they have relevant usage data but (1) their view are biased in multiple ways (at least due to perverse incentives), knowingly and unknowingly (2) they are experts in their field, but not necessarily in sociology, economy, and politics, which are arguably necessary to make serious, even if ineffective, predictions about what's going to happen with labor.
I'd rather see what institutions such as NBER have to say than to blindly trust frontier AI labs that won't even publish their methodologies most of the time.
Yann is a serious person in a very unserious field. He will be vindicated sooner than you think.
LeCun is saying that AI will create jobs — a sentiment I agree with.
LeCun is playing the game, Amodei is playing the meta game.
Amodei's intention is to signal to the corporate world that his product is extremely valuable because they might be able to fire half of their entry level people. Amodei doesn't care whether that's actually true, it's just a sales pitch. Amodei is advertising his product, but LeCun thinks he's making predictions.
You make it sound as if Amodei is just playing the game—"make a profit"—while LeCun is playing the meta-game—"participate in building a functional society."
Bad bot.
Lying to hype your product is not a “meta game”. It’s a short term strategy where you trade your future relevance and credibility for a swimming pool full of cash.
Yann LeCun is a Turing award winning research scientist who will be remembered as a scientist and a visionary.
Amodei’s name will go the way of WeWork’s Adam Neumann - it will be mostly forgotten, and only remembered on occasion as a massive and embarrassing fraud.
Yann is this your throwaway account?