3 ms·
> Which as the AI-safety people say, isn't to say we should be researching it just that we should be devoting more energy to doing it safely as the potential co
by emmab 10y ago
> Which as the AI-safety people say, isn't to say we should be researching it just that we should be devoting more energy to doing it safely as the potential consequences are so high even if the chances of things going wrong is low.
Are the potential consequences really so high? It's not like we're going to be genetically engineering all of humanity in the same way at once, whereas AI safety effects all of humanity at once.
- micro_cam 10y agoI'd argue that our food supply is most at risk as it becomes increasingly a GMO monoculture. (And maybe the solution is as simple as taking measures to encourage genetic diversity.) So i mean the consequences may be orders of magnitude smaller but I'd also argue the chance of something happening is orders of magnitude larger. (We're talking about small chances for either event, that's my point).
- Spooky23 10y agoMonoculture is the risk. GMO is just a symptom. We've had genetic engineering as long as we've had farming. The difference is that we've applied industrial practice to everything. The result will be destructive in the long term, but profitable for now. It's profitable because everything is fungible. There is no incentive to maintain the land. Ancient Rome literally had the same problem.