3 ms·

You'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

You'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...