4 ms·
I assume that investing in AI risk is nonsense for one simple reason: I have yet to see a single study showing that a single undesired behavior has been stopped
by probably_wrong 8y ago
I assume that investing in AI risk is nonsense for one simple reason: I have yet to see a single study showing that a single undesired behavior has been stopped or even slowed down.
DDOS attacks are as stupid as you can get from an intelligence point of view, and yet not a single proponent for AI risk has come up with a way to stop even a single one AFAIK. I haven't heard either of a single military program that has been thwarted, and those computers are killing people right now. I also doubt that they could get a Pentagon official to stop doing anything.
Until the AI risk community show that they can do anything other than talk, no matter how small, I'll remain skeptic.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- justinpombrio 8y agoI'm confused. The research in question is "how can we make sure that a superintelligence would be morally aligned with humans". Why would dealing with DDOS attacks would be the right first step? It seems completely unrelated.
- probably_wrong 8y agoBecause (IMHO) if they want to morally align a superintelligence, the first step would be to either morally align a dumb intelligence or to show that you can convince the people building this intelligence to steer it in this direction. If they do neither, they risk either coming up with a plan that doesn't work (because it was not tested) or that no one cares about.