I think you’re giving LeCun way too much credit if you’re saying his arguments are so bad now because other people around him were hostile and engaged in a low-quality way. Maybe those things were true, but that doesn’t excuse stuff like repeating bad arguments after they’ve been pointed out or confidently proclaiming that we have nothing to worry about based on arguments that obviously don’t hold up.
My comment above was mostly coming from a feeling of being upset, so I’m writing a second comment here to excavate why I feel strongly about this (and decide whether I stand by it on reflection).
I think the reason I care about this is because I’m concerned that we’re losing the ability to distinguish people who are worth learning from (“genuine experts”) from people who have a platform + an overconfident personality. With this concern in mind, I don’t want to let it slide that someone can lower the standards of discourse to an arbitrary degree without suffering a loss of their reputation. (I would say the same thing about some AI safety advocates.) Of course, I agree it reflects badly on AI safety advocates if they’re needlessly making it harder for critics to keep an open mind. Stop doing that. At the same time, it also reflects badly on Meta and the way the media operates (“who qualifies as an expert?”) that the chief AI scientist at the company and someone who gets interviewed a lot has some of the worst takes on the topic I’ve ever seen. That’s scary all by itself, regardless of how we got here.
There are two debates here: (1) Who is blameworthy? (2) What actions should people take going forward? The OP was discussing both, and you seem to be mostly focused on (1). Do you agree with that characterization?
I think the OP’s advice on (2) was good. Being rude is counterproductive if you’re trying to win someone over. It’s a bit more complicated than that, because sometimes you’re trying to win over the person you’re talking to, and sometimes you’re instead trying to win over other people in the audience. But still, I think I see more people erring on the side of “too rude” on both sides, at the expense of accomplishing their own goals. I’m not perfect myself but I do try, and I encourage people to DM me if I’m falling short. For example this post is much less hostile than the previous draft version, and much much much less hostile than the first draft version. It’s still a bit hostile I guess, but that’s the best I could do without failing to communicate things that I felt were very important to communicate. I don’t know if that’s a great example. I’m open to feedback. Note that I would have published the more-hostile versions if not for other people reading the drafts and offering feedback. (I was alarmed by that near-miss and have a plan to be better going forward—I have a personal pre-blog-post-publication checklist and added several items to the effect of “check if I’m being snarky or hostile”.)
I haven’t read the supposed 2015-2020 discussions for the most part, so no comment on (1). I guess I’m much more open-minded to adding blame to other parties than to removing blame from LeCun—I think that’s what you’re saying too. I’m not sure (1) is a really useful thing to argue about anyway though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I think you’re giving LeCun way too much credit if you’re saying his arguments are so bad now because other people around him were hostile and engaged in a low-quality way. Maybe those things were true, but that doesn’t excuse stuff like repeating bad arguments after they’ve been pointed out or confidently proclaiming that we have nothing to worry about based on arguments that obviously don’t hold up.
My comment above was mostly coming from a feeling of being upset, so I’m writing a second comment here to excavate why I feel strongly about this (and decide whether I stand by it on reflection).
I think the reason I care about this is because I’m concerned that we’re losing the ability to distinguish people who are worth learning from (“genuine experts”) from people who have a platform + an overconfident personality. With this concern in mind, I don’t want to let it slide that someone can lower the standards of discourse to an arbitrary degree without suffering a loss of their reputation. (I would say the same thing about some AI safety advocates.) Of course, I agree it reflects badly on AI safety advocates if they’re needlessly making it harder for critics to keep an open mind. Stop doing that. At the same time, it also reflects badly on Meta and the way the media operates (“who qualifies as an expert?”) that the chief AI scientist at the company and someone who gets interviewed a lot has some of the worst takes on the topic I’ve ever seen. That’s scary all by itself, regardless of how we got here.
There are two debates here: (1) Who is blameworthy? (2) What actions should people take going forward? The OP was discussing both, and you seem to be mostly focused on (1). Do you agree with that characterization?
I think the OP’s advice on (2) was good. Being rude is counterproductive if you’re trying to win someone over. It’s a bit more complicated than that, because sometimes you’re trying to win over the person you’re talking to, and sometimes you’re instead trying to win over other people in the audience. But still, I think I see more people erring on the side of “too rude” on both sides, at the expense of accomplishing their own goals. I’m not perfect myself but I do try, and I encourage people to DM me if I’m falling short. For example this post is much less hostile than the previous draft version, and much much much less hostile than the first draft version. It’s still a bit hostile I guess, but that’s the best I could do without failing to communicate things that I felt were very important to communicate. I don’t know if that’s a great example. I’m open to feedback. Note that I would have published the more-hostile versions if not for other people reading the drafts and offering feedback. (I was alarmed by that near-miss and have a plan to be better going forward—I have a personal pre-blog-post-publication checklist and added several items to the effect of “check if I’m being snarky or hostile”.)
I haven’t read the supposed 2015-2020 discussions for the most part, so no comment on (1). I guess I’m much more open-minded to adding blame to other parties than to removing blame from LeCun—I think that’s what you’re saying too. I’m not sure (1) is a really useful thing to argue about anyway though. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯