3 ms·

Advocating a Manhattan Project for General AI without corresponding propaganda for AI Safety Research is unfair and reckless, even if you disagree with the prem

Advocating a Manhattan Project for General AI without corresponding propaganda for AI Safety Research is unfair and reckless, even if you disagree with the premises of AI safety research. Edit: see below. Especially if you disagree with the premise.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago
if you disagree with the premises of AI safety research Which I do, so I disagree with your premise.
- robertk 9y ago
  You don't get what I'm saying. If you're advocating for X and another group advocates for not X, you should ensure both sides have representation. Otherwise your action is equivalent in sanity to Trump cutting global warming funding because he disagrees with the premise. Put another way, if reputable sources contradict you on matters with great impact, do not neglect to fund their voice on the off chance they are correct. This is the same reason why I give the biotech threat guys a voice even if I disagree with their premise. Better?
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    I understand your point but I disagree with the concept of making AGI existentially safe in the long term - I argue it's a functional impossibility and a waste of time and money to research. Biological humanity will ideally be obsolete in the long term. That said, ceding control of critical control systems (SCADA for power, water etc...) needs to be done in the right way to actually ensure that the implementation is better, but that's just good engineering.
    - flycaliguy 9y ago
      Can you point an outsider towards some reading that will help me make sense of the statement "Biological humanity will ideally be obsolete in the long term."?
      - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
        Nothing directly making the case exists as far as I know. The simplest metaphor I always make is that it's the same as the elderly being comfortable dying knowing that their offspring are off living their lives. In this case it's humanity that's dying and AGI is our offspring. I mean we're doomed as a species in the long run anyway - that's well understood evolutionary biology - so lets take control of that and engineer our offspring directly. Here's Lawrence Krauss making the case in a roundabout way: "What if our descendants aren't carbon based, what's wrong with that?" https://youtu.be/gLKmKqrNUKY?t=9m29s https://youtu.be/gLKmKqrNUKY?t=9m29s
      - sjg007 9y ago
        Most likely we will upload ourselves into the matrix/framework...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

if you disagree with the premises of AI safety research Which I do, so I disagree with your premise.

robertk 9y ago
You don't get what I'm saying. If you're advocating for X and another group advocates for not X, you should ensure both sides have representation. Otherwise your action is equivalent in sanity to Trump cutting global warming funding because he disagrees with the premise. Put another way, if reputable sources contradict you on matters with great impact, do not neglect to fund their voice on the off chance they are correct. This is the same reason why I give the biotech threat guys a voice even if I disagree with their premise. Better?
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  I understand your point but I disagree with the concept of making AGI existentially safe in the long term - I argue it's a functional impossibility and a waste of time and money to research. Biological humanity will ideally be obsolete in the long term. That said, ceding control of critical control systems (SCADA for power, water etc...) needs to be done in the right way to actually ensure that the implementation is better, but that's just good engineering.
  - flycaliguy 9y ago
    Can you point an outsider towards some reading that will help me make sense of the statement "Biological humanity will ideally be obsolete in the long term."?
    - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
      Nothing directly making the case exists as far as I know. The simplest metaphor I always make is that it's the same as the elderly being comfortable dying knowing that their offspring are off living their lives. In this case it's humanity that's dying and AGI is our offspring. I mean we're doomed as a species in the long run anyway - that's well understood evolutionary biology - so lets take control of that and engineer our offspring directly. Here's Lawrence Krauss making the case in a roundabout way: "What if our descendants aren't carbon based, what's wrong with that?" https://youtu.be/gLKmKqrNUKY?t=9m29s https://youtu.be/gLKmKqrNUKY?t=9m29s
    - sjg007 9y ago
      Most likely we will upload ourselves into the matrix/framework...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]