351–360 of 607 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if you're the first human on an island full of baby tigers? I think most AI alarmists would argue that this analogy is vastly more appropriate.
The idea here is that the person has to kill all the baby tigers, right? Because otherwise the end state is the same as the island full of adult tigers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if you are given a strong AI randomly selected from the space of all strong AIs Why would this ever apply? We're building them, not picking them out of a hat.
I think the current state of deep neural networking designs and research funding pouring into generalizing the simple neural nets we're working with now suggests that we are, in fact, pulling them out of a hat. Right now we're just discarding all the ones that are defective, at a stupendously high rate as we train neural nets. I can't speak to what method would generate the first strong AI, but I suspect the overall…
Intelligence, having been born as a biological defense mechanism, is evil. It is a weapon. For an intelligent individual, being (or, rather, appearing) "good", is just another layer of defense - this time against other, likewise intelligent, individuals. "An armed society is a polite society." Spying is a form of intelligent behavior. ("Intelligence.") So is stealing (and not getting caught, if possible). And, no dou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seconding the point. If you want to accept "ad hominem" or stereotypes as a useful heuristic, you'll quickly hit things that will get you labeled as ${thing}ist. This is an utterly hypocritical part of our culture.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and am coming to the conclusion that it's similar to dead-weight loss in a taxation scenario. As a society we've accepted the "lower efficiency" and deadweight loss of rejecting {thing}ism because we don't want any one {thing} to get wrongly persecuted only on the basis of it being such a {thing}.
"I would rather 100 deadbeat {class} get hired than one deserving {class} not be hired due to being a {class}."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel the problem is the fact there is 100 billionaires in he first place, no one gets rich on their own. Gates et al, are clever, but didn't get where they are totally independently without others support, so they should give back. Also, some of these billionaires are running companies that are great at tax avoidance, probably most of them. Now what? They get to pick and choose where they get to spend there/invest…
Countries that have no rich people are never prosperous. You can raise marginal income tax rates from, say, 60% to 70%, and maybe that's a good idea overall, but it doesn't get rid of billionaires. High-tax Sweden has as many billionaires per capita as the US does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swedes_by_net_worth If you raise the marginal tax rate to 99%, then you get rid of billionaires, but you also kill y…
The first thing they all did was move their incorporations out of Sweden
Is he joking? Yes, it "failed", but in doing so created a wonderful revolution in mathematical thought, allowing exploring a rich area encompassing model theory, types, computability, algorithms, efficiency, and more.
I do agree with the point per not doing enough around the immediate impact of AI. The autonomous / electric vehicle transition alone is going rip apart the global economy; preparing for that transition could help midigate it's negative impact on certain populations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, this article is hardly written completely with a straight face. It has a cheeky tone throughout. Which isn't to say it doesn't provide interesting points for the layman.
Of course, it does have a cheeky tone, though I think all of my points stand. The "interesting points for a layman" are actually a series of straw-man propaganda arguments. It does not argue in good faith and it should not be afforded the legitimacy of a thoughtful opposing position.
"We’ve learned that at least one American plutocrat (almost certainly Elon Musk, who believes the odds are a billion to one against us living in "base reality") has hired a pair of coders to try to hack the simulation." -->source?
While I agree with Maciej's central point, I think the inside arguments he presents are pretty weak. I think that AI risk is not a pressing concern even if you grant the AI risk crowd's assumptions. Elided from https://alexcbecker.net/blog.html#against-ai-risk : The real AI risk isn't an all-powerful savant which misinterprets a command to "make everyone on Earth happy" and destroys the Earth. It's a military AI that…
People are worried about AI risk because ensuring that the strong AI you build to do X will do X without doing something catastrophic to humanity instead is a very hard problem, and people who have not thought much about this problem tend to vastly underestimate how hard it is. Whatever goals the AI has, it will certainly be better at achieving them if it can stay alive. And it will be more likely to stay alive if th…
These are not bad arguments you are making, or hard ones to get behind. There are just added layers of complexity that the author would like us to think about. Things like how we could actually 'hard-code' a limit or a governor on certain types of motivation. Or what 'motivation' is even driven by at all.
I think you'll enjoy the originally linked article. It's got a lot to consider.