11–20 of 201 posts
The article neglects to consider the precautionary principle. It asks us to act as if AI is safe until it's proven to be dangerous, when the cautious approach is to act as if it's dangerous until it's proven to be safe.
We should apply healthy caution, but the article is right in that fear is a bad counsellor. Asking whether AI is safe is like asking whether a knife is safe. It’s about how we handle it, what we use it for, what precautions we take when using it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should apply healthy caution, but the article is right in that fear is a bad counsellor. Asking whether AI is safe is like asking whether a knife is safe. It’s about how we handle it, what we use it for, what precautions we take when using it.
Why is the article right?
The article neglects to consider the precautionary principle. It asks us to act as if AI is safe until it's proven to be dangerous, when the cautious approach is to act as if it's dangerous until it's proven to be safe.
I'd feel safer if Airbus was at the frontier of AI, instead of what we have now.
> the claims from Coxon and his ilk are the most extraordinary a technologist can make, and we must demand evidence commensurate with the claims.
Yes, exactly. These claims do not have sufficient evidence.
> ...you had nothing to fear then — and (at least with respect to extinction risk!) you have nothing to fear now.
Wait, this is another extraordinary claim without evidence, right?
Unless you're going to dispute the power of AI you do have to acknowledge the danger of AI, and that does include the very real possibility (however small) of existential risk.
So his central rebuttal is that robots aren't good enough yet? What about when they are? And what about all the things you can do entirely remotely? I do feel that threats of catastrophic loss of control seem overstated, both in likelihood and urgency, though any argument for why this risk is not even worth thinking about will probably be overconfident in the other direction.
These are the sober and informed takes that we need more of. > the claims from Coxon and his ilk are the most extraordinary a technologist can make, and we must demand evidence commensurate with the claims. Yes, exactly. These claims do not have sufficient evidence. > ...you had nothing to fear then — and (at least with respect to extinction risk!) you have nothing to fear now. Wait, this is another extraordinary cla…
So his central rebuttal is that robots aren't good enough yet? What about when they are? And what about all the things you can do entirely remotely? I do feel that threats of catastrophic loss of control seem overstated, both in likelihood and urgency, though any argument for why this risk is not even worth thinking about will probably be overconfident in the other direction.
It seems more likely now, if still very unlikely. I wonder, would he say that a statement that there is a 12% chance of a hard take off in the next 8 years is just as absurd? He didn’t say a word about this, and that is just about the same thing as extinction in 10 years.
I’m guessing he knows almost nothing about the theory related to existential risk from AI, since he didn’t discuss any relevant topics related to it. You can dismiss all of that if you like, but you cannot really dismiss what these people have already built and demonstrated. It is possible they know something else you do not know.
So his central rebuttal is that robots aren't good enough yet? What about when they are? And what about all the things you can do entirely remotely? I do feel that threats of catastrophic loss of control seem overstated, both in likelihood and urgency, though any argument for why this risk is not even worth thinking about will probably be overconfident in the other direction.
OP's central rebuttal is that anxiety or fear are not evidence. This particular anxiety has been with us for thirty+ years, its proponents/sufferers weren't right before, and they don't have some new evidence now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OP's central rebuttal is that anxiety or fear are not evidence. This particular anxiety has been with us for thirty+ years, its proponents/sufferers weren't right before, and they don't have some new evidence now.
No new evidence now? Are you serious? We are already seeing acceleration in AI research as a result of AI tools.