Lecun's argument doesn't make sense to me， and it never has. His point is that one should only listen to "experts" in specific disciplines who have studied in that field. I think that's wrong.

Why？ Arguments are examined based on the content of what is presented. One judges whether what is said is true or not， and not based on biography.

It may well be true that someone who has studied in a discipline has in-depth knowledge. But Amodei will also employ a team of scientists at Anthropic and will form an opinion.

This opinion must be critically examined. But it shouldn't be condemned simply because someone studied the "wrong" subject. *That* is unscientific.