5 ms·

Just a random op-ed (read: Rando with an opinion that happens to be under the auspices of NYT) that provides nothing new to the discussion. Poo-poos concerns o

Just a random op-ed (read: Rando with an opinion that happens to be under the auspices of NYT) that provides nothing new to the discussion. Poo-poos concerns of AIs influence on the economy and human safety, with laughable comparisons. For example it argues that people don't agree on what AI is therefore somehow regulating it is premature... (Why would that matter?). The clarity of thought is this piece is negligible. So let's clarify: - Some people are [rightly] concerned about technology in general. As it becomes more powerful (knives then guns then nukes) the ability for a few people to ruin the world for everyone increases. - Some people are [rightly] worried about technology's role in concentration of wealth. - Some people are [rightly] worried about existential threats "grey goo"/black-mirror/robocop/Ex-machina. The role in AI is that it makes each of these threats much more dangerous (e.g. putting AI in drones, AI's effect on the uneducated people's employability, Robocop) [Author doesn't attempt to provide evidence against any of these claims, but just argues the concept is used in a vague way therefore somehow doesn't count]

gaius 9y ago
Nevertheless, someone on the full-time staff decided to commission this piece, then proof-read it and decided to publish it. Op-ed is no disclaimer really, if it’s in the paper it is by definition endorsed by the paper.
camelCaseOfBeer 9y ago
The takeaway I got was that the author more or less wants the conversation about regulation of AI to be less of a top-down approach to a broad reaching and loosely defined topic. The scenario of a, "grey goo" apocalypse verses, say, a bank hiding otherwise discriminatory lending practices behind a neural network black-box, are radically different in terms of plausibility and likelihood. Given the esoteric nature of the topic it's all too easy to see where this is headed when it comes to representative governance. Knee-jerk legislative umbrellas based on the comments of eccentric megalomaniacs made to the news media is a fool's errand, and there's a hell of a lot of foolish people out there.
- alexandercrohde 9y ago
  Well if his position is there are various real AI threats that need to be discussed and handled differently, then I'd agree with that position. However that's not how I read it, particularly given the title.

gaius 9y ago

Nevertheless, someone on the full-time staff decided to commission this piece, then proof-read it and decided to publish it. Op-ed is no disclaimer really, if it’s in the paper it is by definition endorsed by the paper.

camelCaseOfBeer 9y ago

The takeaway I got was that the author more or less wants the conversation about regulation of AI to be less of a top-down approach to a broad reaching and loosely defined topic. The scenario of a, "grey goo" apocalypse verses, say, a bank hiding otherwise discriminatory lending practices behind a neural network black-box, are radically different in terms of plausibility and likelihood. Given the esoteric nature of the topic it's all too easy to see where this is headed when it comes to representative governance. Knee-jerk legislative umbrellas based on the comments of eccentric megalomaniacs made to the news media is a fool's errand, and there's a hell of a lot of foolish people out there.

alexandercrohde 9y ago
Well if his position is there are various real AI threats that need to be discussed and handled differently, then I'd agree with that position. However that's not how I read it, particularly given the title.