I don't see anything new here, just a rehash of people of differing perspectives talking past one another.

Bengio argued for the importance of prudence, stating that we still do not understand how to design safe, powerful AI systems, and highlighted the need for major investment in AI safety and governance. He also questioned the wisdom of open-sourcing powerful AI systems, likening it to freely distributing dangerous weapons.

LeCun . . . countered Bengio’s claims about investment in AI safety, asserting that there is a significant amount of funding being poured into making AI systems safe and reliable. LeCun also disagreed with the comparison of AI systems to weapons, stating AI is designed to enhance human intelligence, not to cause harm.

What things are «designed for» and what they end up being are often not 1 to 1.

Likewise, the weaponization of any particular thing is more closely related to the adversarial nature of a relationship instead of the essence of the thing which is weaponized.

LeCun has a lot if blood on his hands since he single handedly made radiologists obsolete. Add underselling the importance of AI security to the death count.

When the prophet says jump you better ask how high. No wonder the kids these days be saying "off yourself like a radiologist", they are coming of age in this time the historians call "The LeCun havoc".

Blood stains the hands of the society that fails to care for those whose labor has been supplanted, not those of the inventor.

I wish more of the medical field could be made obsolete with AI.

The American Medical Association is a cartel that purposefully limits the supply of medical providers in order to drive up prices, and they're very successful at it. The de facto rationing of medical care caused by high prices kills people who can't afford care.

There's blood on hands, but it's not on the hands of the people who are increasing access to medical treatment.

For a 23 year old who just got into radiology, being replaced is going to be a rough confusing time, if it happens..., not everyone is some rich old AMA executive sitting around gold clubs laughing about charging plebs like you a lot of money?

Your comment sounds vengeful to the very people you'd turn to if you were facing a medical crisis. I understand the point though, just not sure why people have to make these sweeping statements whenever someone points out that the job losses from AI might be very very rough.

If some aspect of medical care can be effectively automated, we should do it. We should do everything we can to make medical care more affordable. Nobody wants to put you in particular out of a job but frankly if you're arguing that we should keep medical care more expensive because you deserve to get money for a job that a computer can do better, that's a tough argument.

Fwiw, I've heard you guys aren't getting replaced by this stuff anyway.

I I’m just saying it’s not practical for everyone to be replaced because it will crush the economy.

Your health depends on you having money to buy food.

I agree we shouldn't use this thing for cultural expression like art and writing, but if all your job entails is interpreting radiological images, and a computer can do it faster, better, and cheaper, you should probably learn some new skills.

We're not talking about the wider economy here, we're talking about radiology in particular.

I don't think the plan is to stop at radiology.

> I I’m just saying it’s not practical for everyone to be replaced because it will crush the economy.

The purpose of the economy is to fairly allocate resources to people. Labor is a resource. If we suddenly have no scarcity of labor, that should mean everyone is wealthier than before. If the economy is crushed by suddenly having a limitless supply of a resource, it means the economy isn't able to allocate resources fairly, which is a problem with the economy, not the resource.

I'm an optimist and I think people can make the economy adapt to the problem of suddenly being richer than it was previously.

The problem as ever is equity.

> Your comment sounds vengeful to the very people you'd turn to if you were facing a medical crisis.

No, it's vengeful to the cartel that restricts the number of doctors that are allowed to exist[1]. Now there aren't enough radiologists[2]. If AI can solve this problem and get everyone the needed care, I'm all for it. The end that society is pursuing is a healthy population that isn't crippled by medical costs. If you're able to earn a living solving that problem, wonderful. If you're not, I'm sorry, but the medical field shouldn't primarily be a welfare system that incidentally provides health care.

[1] https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/03/15/ama-scope...

[2] https://www.acr.org/Practice-Management-Quality-Informatics/...

Your health depends on you having money to buy food.

I’d say most jobs are some type of welfare.

That is a myth. The AMA has no control over the supply of providers. In reality the supply is constrained by the number of residency program slots, and the AMA has been lobbying Congress to increase those.

https://savegme.org/

This really looks like crocodile tears, given that the constraint on the number of residency program slots is exactly what the AMA asked for. [1] To put it another way, "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining."

The AMA doesn't do anything so gauche as directly controlling things, but it is absolutely the power behind the throne.

> Lawmakers received cover from the American Medical Association (AMA), the Association of American Medical Colleges, and other major stakeholders in American medicine who endorsed caps on funding for residents and other graduate medical education programs. In March 1997, months before the Balanced Budget Act was enacted, the AMA even suggested reducing the number of US residency positions by approximately 25% from 25,000 to fewer than 19,000.

[1] https://qz.com/1676207/the-us-is-on-the-verge-of-a-devastati...

If radiologists were made obsolete by a superior alternative, there would be a lot of positive results for society. The output is what matters. Not least, all those talented people wouldn't waste their time on something that could be automated.

God I hope ai will advance much more than now, to a point where custom medicine will be available to anyone

Huh? Radiologists are hardly obsolete. They are busier than ever.

I would hardly call a few facebook comments a "clash" or a "debate"