5 ms·
You're reading too much into what I said. I didn't mean to imply that global warming will end the world with certainty and definitely not that the planet will b
by feanaro 8y ago
You're reading too much into what I said. I didn't mean to imply that global warming will end the world with certainty and definitely not that the planet will blow up. I simply meant that the probability of the world (in the sense of the human civilization in its current form; definitely not the planet itself) ending from global warming is greater than it ending from god-like AGI.
I don't consider this a controversial statement. From my own reading of the relevant studies, I think there is definitely a non-negligible probability that runaway effects may make Earth very harsh or even completely unsuitable for human life, eventually. Are you saying the current studies outrule this scenario entirely or with near certainty?
- nuguy 8y agoAI is much more severe. Whether just automation or otherwise. We can come back from global warming. We can never come back from AI.
- feanaro 8y agoThat depends on a lot of factors which I am unconvinced can be determined beforehand. I agree that the worst-case AGI scenario is worse than the worst-case global warming scenario.
- nuguy 8y agoNothing is determined beforehand, you use what you know to try and guess what will happen. How can you look at it all, and my comments, and not think that the outcomes I’ve described are a very good guess? It doesn’t have to be definitive. GW is not definitively proven. All you need is to show that there seems to be a chance that something really bad will happen. How have have I not done that? What link in the chain is ambiguous to you?