31–40 of 81 posts
Not-joking answer: James Cameron. Before him, Stanley Kubrick. Our cultural headspace has been primed to see killer robot AI, so we see killer robot AI. Which is not to downplay AGI risk per se- it's a powerful tool, and powerful anything can be dangerous. But the uniquely foomy paperclip maximizer fear? That's a cultural attractor from the bay area through and through.
I admit I’m completely out of my depth when it comes to this field — I don’t even typically care about AI — but Eliezer’s response looks really bad to anyone in research. Asking for a citable and thorough written argument is as basic a requirement as it gets. To repudiate that request with “everyone has a different objection” is nearly unthinkable. And to David Chalmers no less! I think podcast hosts, tweet authors,…
What's the academically supported description/ argument or whatever for why nuclear weapons are dangerous for the world if they exist? Obviously they are dangerous for the world because we might kill everyone if someone makes a mistake or gets mad and shoots one first. The danger of nukes is more obvious than why AI is dangerous.
I admit I’m completely out of my depth when it comes to this field — I don’t even typically care about AI — but Eliezer’s response looks really bad to anyone in research. Asking for a citable and thorough written argument is as basic a requirement as it gets. To repudiate that request with “everyone has a different objection” is nearly unthinkable. And to David Chalmers no less! I think podcast hosts, tweet authors,…
What's the academically supported description/ argument or whatever for why nuclear weapons are dangerous for the world if they exist? Obviously they are dangerous for the world because we might kill everyone if someone makes a mistake or gets mad and shoots one first. The danger of nukes is more obvious than why AI is dangerous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For example, if I asked for the canonical argument for the existence of god, I'd probably get a wide variety of answers proposing essays from various theologicians throughout history, like Thomas Aquinas or René Descartes. Since there are a large number of them, no single one of them can be the canonical source. Perhaps one could link the Wikipedia page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God ) which summari…
I don’t see that as a problem. If there are numerous mutually exclusive arguments for the same broad conclusion, then feel free to point that out and maybe try to link to one or more of them. It just makes no sense whatsoever that a believer in God would just say “I could never possibly even begin to present an argument because there are so many ways to do so and so many different rebuttals people might make.”
Define canonical, but the encyclopedia is a great start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artifici... Fascinating that even Turing had considered the possibility.
Oh my, the implications of this sentence are staggering. Equating Musk on the same level of Turing is the definition of a juxtaposition, but that's not even my point: the second juxtaposition is putting inventors of computing theory next to profit-driven egos trying to make a buck. These two layers themselves indicate the table stakes are already tilted in the favor or recklessness.
I admit I’m completely out of my depth when it comes to this field — I don’t even typically care about AI — but Eliezer’s response looks really bad to anyone in research. Asking for a citable and thorough written argument is as basic a requirement as it gets. To repudiate that request with “everyone has a different objection” is nearly unthinkable. And to David Chalmers no less! I think podcast hosts, tweet authors,…
What's the academically supported description/ argument or whatever for why nuclear weapons are dangerous for the world if they exist? Obviously they are dangerous for the world because we might kill everyone if someone makes a mistake or gets mad and shoots one first. The danger of nukes is more obvious than why AI is dangerous.
If someone said “the invention of nuclear weapons is guaranteed to lead to global destruction,” you might ask to see their reasoning for such a strong assertion. (As opposed to your assessment of nuclear weapons as a risk to be managed.)
I admit I’m completely out of my depth when it comes to this field — I don’t even typically care about AI — but Eliezer’s response looks really bad to anyone in research. Asking for a citable and thorough written argument is as basic a requirement as it gets. To repudiate that request with “everyone has a different objection” is nearly unthinkable. And to David Chalmers no less! I think podcast hosts, tweet authors,…
This is what social media’s real damage is. It turned academic progress into arguable points. Your research degree and countless lab hours is equally valid to my two-second no-research hot take, and if you’re not on board with it then you’re swarmed.
This is more like watching an argument between Feynman and Oppenheimer. They look like hot takes on twitter, but these guys have spent plenty of time thinking about it.
Yudkowsky is an AI ethics and safety researcher, also founder of LessWrong, an HN favorite – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky
And Chalmers is a philosopher focusing on consciousness and cognitive science – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers
I wouldn’t put their replies in exactly the same category as your typical social media reply guys.
I admit I’m completely out of my depth when it comes to this field — I don’t even typically care about AI — but Eliezer’s response looks really bad to anyone in research. Asking for a citable and thorough written argument is as basic a requirement as it gets. To repudiate that request with “everyone has a different objection” is nearly unthinkable. And to David Chalmers no less! I think podcast hosts, tweet authors,…
What's the academically supported description/ argument or whatever for why nuclear weapons are dangerous for the world if they exist? Obviously they are dangerous for the world because we might kill everyone if someone makes a mistake or gets mad and shoots one first. The danger of nukes is more obvious than why AI is dangerous.
"The danger of nukes is more obvious than why AI is dangerous."
Succinctly stated. This is why people are asking for canonical arguments for AI Ruin.
Define canonical, but the encyclopedia is a great start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artifici... Fascinating that even Turing had considered the possibility.
"Concerns about superintelligence have been voiced by leading computer scientists and tech CEOs such as Geoffrey Hinton,[6] Alan Turing,[a] Elon Musk,[9] and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman." Oh my, the implications of this sentence are staggering. Equating Musk on the same level of Turing is the definition of a juxtaposition, but that's not even my point: the second juxtaposition is putting inventors of computing theory next…
1. is as far superior to humans as humans are to ants (pick your favorite alternative analogy), and
2. does not share any evolutionary or social commonality with humans
is both extremely dangerous and extremely unpredictable.
While I'm not completely convinced by the "AGI = annihilation" idea that LessWrong seems to be so sure about (for the simple reason that I don't believe anyone is capable of predicting with any certainty how a super-human entity would actually behave), the idea that AGI is just "another risk we need to learn to manage" (quote from the Twitter thread) sure does sound naive.