3 ms·
Please notice that your reply is a different argument than the one you first put forth. Originally, you weren't worried about AI because you thought it could ne
by ggreer 11y ago
Please notice that your reply is a different argument than the one you first put forth. Originally, you weren't worried about AI because you thought it could never –even in principle– vastly exceed human abilities. Now you're basically saying, "I don't need to worry because it won't happen for a long time." That is a huge amount of ground to cede.
I'm not so confident that human-level AI will take a long time. The timeline depends on algorithmic insights, which are notoriously difficult to predict. It could be a century. It could be a decade. Still, it seems like something worth worrying about.
- mindcrime 11y agoPlease notice that your reply is a different argument than the one you first put forth. Originally, you weren't worried about AI because you thought it could never –even in principle– vastly exceed human abilities. I never said I wasn't worried about AI. You're extrapolating from what I did say; which I've said all along was just a thought experiment, not a position I'm actually arguing for.
- mattmanser 11y agoI really recommend you read Bostrom, he really does succinctly argue the relevant positions, if a bit drily. It's one of those books that put the arguments so clearly you're suddenly catapulted to having a vastly superior knowledge of the subject than someone trying to do simple thought experiments. Both of your arguments look out-dated if you're one of the people 'in the know'. Also, I suggest looking a bit more into what's going on in machine learning, it's suddenly got far more sophisticated than I personally realized until a couple of months ago when I was chatting to someone developing in it at the moment.
- mindcrime 11y agoI actually have the Bostrom book, but just haven't found time to read it yet. But it is definitely in the queue!