Geoffrey Hinton: it might turn out we were better off without AI

Re:Geoffrey Hinton: it might turn out we were better off wit... by mcv on Wednesday November 04, 2026 @11:53AM (#50368322)

Both nuclear bombs and AI are not inevitable. Technology depends not just on knowledge, but on infrastructure. Building and maintaining nuclear bombs requires enormous amounts of resources, and it's a conscious decision to continue spending those resources to maintain nuclear capability. Similarly, developing AI requires enormous resources, as you can see from the massive investments in hardware and data centers. If the economic foundation for it doesn't exist, you're not going to get more powerful AI.

The models we currently have aren't going away, and especially the ones small enough to run at home will continue to be used, but if these data center investments end up bankrupting Big Tech, I don't think we're ever going to see anything beyond that. Not for a long time, at least.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Geoffrey Hinton: it might turn out we were better off wit... by e28eta on Wednesday November 04, 2026 @12:24PM (#50368690)

Does developing AI _require_ enormous resources, or is it using enormous resources right now because the people with the capital are throwing it at the AI companies hoping for a massive payout in the future?

My guess would be that once the money runs out, things slow down, but incremental progress continues to be made. A focus on smaller models will improve their capabilities. We’ll get better at driving them. It’ll be used in places where it truly makes sense, instead of anywhere & everywhere just because it’s easy.

I don’t actually know what the financials are, but even without the effective subsidy from VC money, I have to believe there are things AI’s doing today that’s way cheaper than what it would cost to have a human doing equivalent work. And that dynamic will drive further innovation in the space for a long time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Geoffrey Hinton: it might turn out we were better off wit... by munksbeer on Thursday November 05, 2026 @01:02AM (#50375744)

> Both nuclear bombs and AI are not inevitable.

What does this actually mean? In what sense are people using this term. In the most strictly literal sense then sure, nothing is inevitable, because all paths are open.

But in the practical sense, I am quite happy to use the term inevitable for many technologies. I think if ASI is possible (and I think it is), then it is also inevitable. I would happily work towards developing ASI technology, because I believe it will be ultimately good for the world. But it sounds like a lot of people want to lock me up or even kill me if I did that.

[ Parent | on HN ]