Yann LeCun
speaker
384 appearances
5 recordings
4 series
first heard Mar 2024
last heard 20 Jun
Yann LeCun’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 4 in all, peaking in Jan 2026 with 2.
Appearances
If those applications turn out to be useful for our customers, we can just buy it from them. It could be that they will improve the platform. In fact, we see this already. I mean, there is literally millions of downloads of Lama 2 already. and thousands of people who have provided ideas about how to make it better.
This clearly accelerates progress to make the system available to a wide community of people. There are literally thousands of businesses who are building applications with it. Our ability to, Meta's ability to derive revenue from this technology is not impaired by the distribution of it, of base models in open source.
No, I don't think the issue has to do with the political leaning of the people designing those systems. It has to do with the acceptability or political leanings of their customer base or audience, right? So a big company cannot afford to offend too many people. So they're going to make sure that whatever product they put out is safe, whatever that means. And it's very possible to overdo it.
And it's also very possible to, it's impossible to do it properly for everyone. You're not going to satisfy everyone. So that's what I said before. You cannot have a system that is unbiased, that is perceived as unbiased by everyone.
It's going to be, you know, you push it in one way, one set of people are going to see it as biased, and then you push it the other way, and another set of people is going to see it as biased. And then in addition to this, there's the issue of if you push the system perhaps a little too far in one direction, it's going to be non-factual, right?
You're going to have, you know, black Nazi soldiers in the image.
Right, and can be offensive for some people as well, right? So it's gonna be impossible to kind of produce systems that are unbiased for everyone. So the only solution that I see is diversity.
Basically, yeah. I mean, Mark is right about a number of things that he lists that indeed scare large companies. You know, certainly congressional investigations is one of them, legal liability. making things that get people to hurt themselves or hurt others.
Big companies are really careful about not producing things of this type, because they don't want to hurt anyone, first of all, and then second, they want to preserve their business.
It's essentially impossible for systems like this that can inevitably formulate political opinions and opinions about various things that may be political or not, but that people may disagree about, about, you know, moral issues and, you know, things about like questions about religion and things like that, right? Or cultural issues.
issues that people from different communities would disagree with in the first place so there's only kind of a relatively small number of things that people will sort of agree on you know basic principles but beyond that if you if you want those systems to be useful they will necessarily have to offend a number of people inevitably
That's right. Open source enables diversity.
Yeah. I mean, there are some limits to what, you know, the same way there are limits to free speech, there has to be some limit to the kind of stuff that those systems might be authorized to do. to produce some guardrails.
So, I mean, that's one thing I've been interested in, which is in the type of architecture that we were discussing before, where the output of a system is a result of an inference to satisfy an objective. That objective can include guardrails. And we can put guardrails in open source systems. I mean, if we eventually have systems that are built with this blueprint.
We can put guardrails in those systems that guarantee that there is sort of a minimum set of guardrails that make the system non-dangerous and non-toxic, etc. You know, basic things that everybody would agree on. And then, you know, the fine-tuning that people will add or the additional guardrails that people will add will kind of cater to their community, whatever it is.
Right, so the increasing number of studies on this seems to point to the fact that it doesn't help. So having an LLM doesn't help you design or build a bioweapon or a chemical weapon if you already have access to a search engine and a library. And so the sort of increased information you get or the ease with which you get it doesn't really help you. That's the first thing. The second thing is,
It's one thing to have a list of instructions of how to make a chemical weapon, for example, or a bioweapon. It's another thing to actually build it. And it's much harder than you might think, and an LLM will not help you with that. In fact, nobody in the world, not even countries, use bioweapons because most of the time they have no idea how to protect their own populations against it.
So it's too dangerous, actually, to ever use. And it's, in fact, banned by... international treaties chemical weapons is different it's also banned by treaties but but it's the same problem it's difficult to use in situations that doesn't turn against the perpetrators but we could ask Elon Musk like I can I can give you a very precise list of instructions of how you build a rocket engine and
And even if you have a team of 15 engineers that are really experienced building it, you're still going to have to blow up a dozen of them before you get one that works. And it's the same with chemical weapons or bio-weapons or things like this. It requires expertise in the real world that an airline is not going to help you with.
Yeah, exactly. A lot of biologists have posted on this actually in response to those things saying like, do you realize how hard it is to actually do the lab work? Like, you know, this is not trivial.
Showing 261–280 of 384 · page 14 of 20
← Previous
Next →