3 ms·

This is a deeply flawed rehash of some of the field's least interesting commentary. Among other things, the likes of Musk and Hawking, while brilliant, are in

This is a deeply flawed rehash of some of the field's least interesting commentary. Among other things, the likes of Musk and Hawking, while brilliant, are in no way experts on artificial intelligence. Rebutting them is far less meaningful than rebutting Moravec, Russell, Bostrom, Sutton, or any of the other actual experts in the field who have expressed concerns. More to the point, a discussion of what an AI "wants" is sophistry at best. That the Tesla autopilot does not "want" to kill anyone should be of little comfort when it kills someone. No one talking serious about AI as existential risk is envisioning Skynet, and no one interested in real consequences cares whether an extinction-driving AI has human-style desires.

inputcoffee 10y ago
Thanks for reading it, even if you're unhappy with it. I agree that Musk et al are not AI experts. I wanted to respond to their public comments which I do not agree with. I am not necessarily at odds with the "actual experts" as you put it, so I didn't respond to them. I also agree that the AI experts have substantive positions, and I am do not claim I have undermined them. This last point has been repeated many times. I have clearly failed to address it in my piece. I summarize the point as: an AI may not have desires, but it can have goals. I did think about it, and I tried to address it in the last section, but clearly it was too little and too late. I may try to rework it to address it more fully. Thanks for reading and responding.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  I addressed this elsewhere (on your 'ask for criticisms' post), but I think I misunderstood your intent. As a rejection of Musk/Gates/Hawking, I definitely endorse this. Those voices are pushing a questionably-informed view of the topic (Gates a bit less so?) that's had far too much public influence. Something (the title? my own biases?) led me to conclude that you were trying a larger response to the AI community, which is what I objected to so strongly. That's a great summary of the point (as I meant it). I saw that it was addressed at the end. I still came away with the feeling that the middle was irrelevant in light of it (again, perhaps not if you're responding to Musk), and the response was inadequate, but this may be about scope and intended audience.

inputcoffee 10y ago

Thanks for reading it, even if you're unhappy with it. I agree that Musk et al are not AI experts. I wanted to respond to their public comments which I do not agree with. I am not necessarily at odds with the "actual experts" as you put it, so I didn't respond to them. I also agree that the AI experts have substantive positions, and I am do not claim I have undermined them. This last point has been repeated many times. I have clearly failed to address it in my piece. I summarize the point as: an AI may not have desires, but it can have goals. I did think about it, and I tried to address it in the last section, but clearly it was too little and too late. I may try to rework it to address it more fully. Thanks for reading and responding.

Bartweiss 10y ago
I addressed this elsewhere (on your 'ask for criticisms' post), but I think I misunderstood your intent. As a rejection of Musk/Gates/Hawking, I definitely endorse this. Those voices are pushing a questionably-informed view of the topic (Gates a bit less so?) that's had far too much public influence. Something (the title? my own biases?) led me to conclude that you were trying a larger response to the AI community, which is what I objected to so strongly. That's a great summary of the point (as I meant it). I saw that it was addressed at the end. I still came away with the feeling that the middle was irrelevant in light of it (again, perhaps not if you're responding to Musk), and the response was inadequate, but this may be about scope and intended audience.