Yann LeCun 发文反驳 AI 灭绝论，称 p(doom) 估计毫无意义

LeCun 从两个层面展开论述：一是对人类的信心不足只是暴露了提出者的悲观，这是他与 Hinton 分歧之一；二是智能不等于权力和支配，病毒、毒蛇、老虎都能放倒人类，现实中大量愚蠢的人支配着更聪明的人。他认为超级智能 AI 会在安全护栏约束下为人类工作，不会有接管世界的欲望。

他还介绍了自己提出的技术方案 Objective-Driven AI 架构，主张在推理时通过满足安全护栏来保证系统安全。这篇发言延续了图灵奖得主之间关于 AI 安全风险的公开争论，表明 LeCun 与以 Hinton 为代表的生存风险派在技术路线上仍在持续对立。

In democratic societies, everyone has *some* responsibility on how the use of technology maximizes benefits and minimizes bad side effects. The benefits of AI are real today, and will greatly expand in the future. The bad side effects have, so far, been minimal. It's on all of us to make sure it remains that way. The catastrophe scenarios (extinction, employment apocalypse, etc) are totally ridiculous for anyone who understands how thing work in the real world. And the p(doom) estimates are all pulled out of their authors' back ends. It makes no sense to attribute a probability to events over which we have complete agency. Whatever probability you come up with merely reveals your lack of confidence that your fellow humans will do the right thing. Confidence in humanity is one thing Geoff and I disagree on. The other thing we disagree on is the primacy of intelligence. In the real world, intelligence is not synonymous with power and dominance. A virus, a poisonous snake, or a tiger can bring down a human. Lots of very stupid humans dominate much smarter ones (just look at the international political scene). Superintelligent AI will work for us and do our bidding, subject to safety guardrails. It will have no desire to take over. I have made detailed technical proposals for AI architectures that can be made safe by satisfying safety guardrails at inference time. I call it Objective-Driven AI Architecture.📊 11 ⚡

本条情报归属 AITOP「行业」核心栏目，重点聚焦北美前沿实验室与硅谷科技巨头。在跨区域产业观察坐标中，该动态直接关联「AI 开发者工具链、Coding Agent 与工程化实践」研究主线，反映出当前技术演进与商业落地的最新风向。涉及核心实体与技术议题包括：Yann LeCun、Geoffrey Hinton、AI安全、p(doom)，读者可通过下方标签进入对应专题页查阅历史脉络与关联对比。

信源核验说明：本文原始线索采编自「Yann LeCun」（@ylecun），经 AITOP 多维评分管线结构化提炼。