4 ms·
> Maybe you aren't aware, but this is a field that people do PhDs and get professorships in. I'm aware of my own existence, thanks ;-) > Noone respected agree
by throwawayjava 8y ago
> Maybe you aren't aware, but this is a field that people do PhDs and get professorships in.
I'm aware of my own existence, thanks ;-)
> Noone respected agrees with the doom-sayers
But many, many, many respected AI researchers (who I've talked to about this) certainly do agree that AI/ML safety/robustness are important topics of inquiry.
Including researchers at all the top CS departments, at Deepmind, at OpenAI, etc.
Consider critiquing the concrete projects that are funded with AI safety money. Very little of that money flows to research about "preventing malicious superintelligence" or whatever strawman you have in mind. And even projects that consider those questions also consider many much more near-term AI safety questions.
- Nimitz14 8y agoThere is a difference between AI/ML safety/robustness (as in ensuring self driving cars don't behave erratically given unexpected inputs), and the skynet predictions. > Consider critiquing the concrete projects that are funded with AI safety money. Very little of that money flows to research about "preventing malicious superintelligence" or whatever strawman you have in mind. And even projects that consider those questions also consider many much more near-term AI safety questions. But this ("preventing malicious superintelligence") is EXACTLY what we are talking about. The comment in the OP was quoting the following > Grants will likely go to organizations that seek to reduce global catastrophic risks, especially those relating to advanced artificial intelligence.