3 ms·
That was rather the point of my first post? That those whom have these concerns are mostly not worried about the fantastical version of 'evil super-intelligence
by forgotpwtomain 11y ago
That was rather the point of my first post? That those whom have these concerns are mostly not worried about the fantastical version of 'evil super-intelligence' (although they are worried that AI could be an existential-threat) - of course you can address the most extreme-position presented and call it silly, but I don't think that's adding much to my understanding of the problem.
For example I think a very serious concern is surrendering human decision making to machine-learning in the areas where big data-sets can be very widely applicable (crime, insurance, employment, immigration, finance) - loosing control of our own systems, to perhaps even provably better decision making is a totally not fantastic possibility. But if the response to this is a malicious super-intelligence won't send a robot with automatic weapons to your house in the next hundred years, I'm supposed to feel reassured?
- solipsism 11y agoYou're missing what I'm saying. There's no reason to think that most people who signed that letter have any concerns. The letter is written such that signing it is basically an affirmation that we should use AI to help society. You started by wondering why Ng didn't address the concerns. It's because experts don't tend to be concerned. The letter was your evidence to the contrary, and it is not convincing.
- forgotpwtomain 11y ago> You started by wondering why Ng didn't address the concerns. It's because experts don't tend to be concerned. While not everyone who signed is necessarily concerned about 'existential dangers to humanity' or is an expert specifically in AI, for some signers both are definitely true - for an example you can cross reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artificial_general_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artifici...