11–20 of 62 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very very uncertain "as long."
It's a bet that a super intelligent brain will be far more capable than a primate brain. Edit: In other words, how could it fail to grasp and obtain our very basic level of consciousness?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very very uncertain "as long."
It's a bet that a super intelligent brain will be far more capable than a primate brain. Edit: In other words, how could it fail to grasp and obtain our very basic level of consciousness?
"Argument from incredulity", among its many other flaws, has never in human history been a good guide to the future. Many, many things that people would find non-credible (since "incredible" has sort of wandered in meaning in the last century) have even so come to pass. "Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bet that a super intelligent brain will be far more capable than a primate brain. Edit: In other words, how could it fail to grasp and obtain our very basic level of consciousness?
Intelligence and ethical behavior are orthogonal. You can expect a super-intelligence to develop a super-understanding of ethics. That does not imply ethical behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Like all lifeforms, our goal should be to hand our future to better and better offspring. How did you determine the moral purpose of all life? I say our goal should be to hand our future off to our own biological offspring, the members of our species, as evolution has optimized us to do. What makes your proposed purpose more correct than mine?
It is (kind of) our biological offspring, we'll just create it using our brain fluids instead of our reproductive fluids ;-) Your limited primate brain is the reason you want primate offspring. This bias is in our DNA and part of our evolution. It's a limitation that your super AI offspring would not have.
But more generally, of the two ways of seeing it, who's to say which is right? When we disagree, to what can you appeal?
My point is, these moral questions are completely arbitrary. There is no grand cosmic objective function for life that is objectively true. Using these quasi-religious arguments about the "purpose of life" to guide AI safety research seems extremely irresponsible.
Too bad OpenAI has less than a handful of people working on safety and only one safety paper (to be published in a few months) throughout these two years of OpenAI's existence. Actions speak louder than words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bet that a super intelligent brain will be far more capable than a primate brain. Edit: In other words, how could it fail to grasp and obtain our very basic level of consciousness?
"Edit: In other words, how could it fail to grasp and obtain our very basic level of consciousness?" "Argument from incredulity", among its many other flaws, has never in human history been a good guide to the future. Many, many things that people would find non-credible (since "incredible" has sort of wandered in meaning in the last century) have even so come to pass. "Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
I'm making a claim: that an entity with orders of magnitude more intelligence and knowledge would logically have a superset of our brain's functionality.
And that there's nothing magical about our brains. A super intelligence would crack the nut of human consciousness in its first attempt.
Too bad OpenAI has less than a handful of people working on safety and only one safety paper (to be published in a few months) throughout these two years of OpenAI's existence. Actions speak louder than words.
A huge part of how they are working towards safer AI is making the tools accessible to everyone. There code is open source, which helps democratize AI instead of keeping it in the hands of a few corporations. IMO, that's a pretty sound strategy.
I'm not very worried about AI safety. But if I was, it'd be hard to think of groups like OpenAI as working on the same side.
For me, this is the key motivating point - the horse may have left the barn by the time we act. A lot of times people say this is exaggeration but "Weapons of Math Destruction" is a nice read on unintended side effects of this phenomena [0].
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Math-Destruction-Increases-In...