4 ms·

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

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.