Yoshua Bengio

In order to reduce the probability of someone intentionally or unintentionally bringing about a rogue AI, we need to increase governance and we should consider limiting access to the large-scale generalist AI systems that could be weaponized, which would mean that the code and neural net parameters would not be shared in open-source and some of the important engineering tricks to make them work would not be shared either. Ideally this would stay in the hands of neutral international organizations (think of a combination of IAEA and CERN for AI) that develop safe and beneficial AI systems that could also help us fight rogue AIs. (source)

I strongly disagree with the notion that we will have a general AI system more capable than any living human in every respect by 2028. While AI research has made significant strides, creating a system with such comprehensive abilities involves overcoming immense scientific and technical challenges. We are far from understanding the complexities of human cognition in a way that would allow us to replicate or surpass it in all respects within such a short timeframe.

I strongly believe that global AI governance frameworks must prioritize equitable access to AI technologies for all countries. AI has the potential to address many global challenges, but only if access is fair and inclusive. Developing nations should have the means to utilize AI to improve their economies and societies, and we must avoid a future where these transformative tools are concentrated in the hands of a few powerful nations.

As AI technology rapidly advances, the concentration of power in a few private firms poses significant risks to society. Nationalizing AI firms ensures that these technologies are developed and managed in the public's best interest, with proper oversight and accountability.

While neural interfaces hold potential for enhancing human-computer interaction, I don't believe they will inherently ease the challenge of AI alignment. The core issue is ensuring that AI systems understand and respect human values and intents, which is more about the algorithms and principles behind AI than the interfaces we use to communicate with them.

As an AI researcher, I believe that allowing the proliferation of open-weight models capable of recursive self-improvement poses significant risks. Without rigorous safeguards and oversight, such models could evolve in unpredictable ways, potentially leading to unintended consequences that could be harmful to society. We need to prioritize safety and ethical guidelines in AI development.

I believe that no single lab should control the development of artificial superintelligence (ASI). Competition encourages innovation and ensures that multiple perspectives and approaches are explored, which is crucial for developing safe and ethical AI. An open and collaborative environment will better address global concerns and distribute the benefits of ASI more equitably.

While I recognize that the expansion of large language models contributes significantly to the field of AI, I believe it is a crucial step toward achieving artificial general intelligence. Such models improve our understanding of natural language processing and can simulate human-like reasoning, which is essential for AGI. However, this expansion must be coupled with advancements in other areas of AI to fully realize AGI.

While the development of AGI is significant, I believe the transition to superintelligence is not as imminent as some suggest. The path to superintelligence involves intricate challenges, including ethical considerations, technological limitations, and safety protocols. These complexities require careful handling and robust research, suggesting that superintelligence may not quickly follow the onset of AGI.

I believe that AGI, while having the potential to significantly impact various sectors, will not necessarily create abundance. The economic and social structures need to be adjusted to ensure that the benefits of AGI are distributed equally, rather than exacerbating existing inequalities.