Resolves Yes if any counterexample to Yann's claim here occurs before 2030, in my judgement. Resolves No otherwise.
I will not trade in this market.
Yud is a rascal and I feel like this is an appropriate addition to this market's commentary?
Aren’t there trivially thousands of examples of technologies being used unsafely? Drugs? Weapons? Pesticides? Hacking? Cars?! don’t get it.
Minor quibble but a positive resolution of your question doesn’t necessarily refute LeCun since he conditionalizes on the existence of a safe pathway. We could deploy a new technology in an unsafe way because there is no safe way.
@NicoDelon Good points all around. I'm open to refining the resolution criteria here, but I'm not trying to "gotcha" LeCunn. That said, yes this should still be trivial I think? But note it has to be a "new technology" which is itself fuzzy.
Going through your list to try to think of what would/wouldn't count:
Drugs - The Opioid epidemic would be a counterexample I think. Same with cigarettes as NC pointed out. But any new opioids after this market are probably not a "new technology" unless they're like some super opioid that claims they're non-addictive, and then it turns out they are addictive.
Weapons - This is a bit of a gotcha, I'd probably only count a weapon as a new technology deployed unsafely if it was like a newsmaking new weapon that exploded and blew your hands off. It's supposed to be unsafe to the people you point it at.
Pesticides - Also probably counts a counterexample in the past? I don't actually know that much about pesticides and how harmful they are, or how harmful they were when first deployed. A new fancy kind of pesticide that claims to be safe and then turns out to make the produce poisonous could count.
Hacking - Not sure what you mean on this one.
Cars - Cars are very much an old technology and known to have many unsafe features, so I think unlikely to count as a new counterexample. But maybe if Cybertrucks started routinely blowing up when you try to roll down the window or something like that.
And yeah, in all these cases I'm listing I think there would be a safe way to have done things and so it's a counterexample because it's done unsafely.
@Joshua Sorry, I didn’t mean to use those as examples of new technologies but as a way to pin holes in the implicit base he seems to be using for induction. I think we agree it is very likely that any new technology has the potential to be misused and that, if it can, it likely will. I find his confidence quite alarming (and I’m not a Luddite or a fan of precautionary principles).
I'd resolve it early if there's a clear case, but could wait to resolve if there is an ambiguous case like those.
I'll be the well-dressed three-armed baby pondering whether Yud was right or if I'm born just in time for a transhuman utopia
(coinflip market)