Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

We have no reason to believe either LeCunn or Altman are reckless. This is just lazy thinking. Basically, failing to position themselves securely in the doomer camp by constantly signalling their commitment to doomer doctrine, they have already disqualified themselves from being considered responsible. No need to back the claim with evidence - they haven't demonstrated unquestioning dedication to the cult.



What would be evidence of the risks? The first million dead?


The idea that people can die does not provide much support here. It's easy to imagine doomsday scenarios for any technology or human behaviour. If you want to claim that a particular way of conducting R&D is reckless, it's on you to come up with convincing evidence.


Has human deaths ever prevented anything from being developed further?

Did we phase out guns, drones, bombs, nukes, fracking, etc.?

If there is money to be made, it will be made.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: