3 ms·

The condescending tone you have does not help you. And you seem to be more concerned with looking at my account history or brushing me off as “fud” than actuall

The condescending tone you have does not help you. And you seem to be more concerned with looking at my account history or brushing me off as “fud” than actually addressing the substance of my comment. And yes, I do so completely believe in what I’ve written that I have opted to not have children until it is clear that a solution will be implemented. There are two parts to my argument: the substrate for AGI to spring from is basically here or around the corner. Human level ai is fundamentally incompatible with human society. Pick the one that you think is wrong and tell me the chain of logic that proves I’m wrong. It is obvious to anyone that AI has the potential to be more dangerous than anything humans have ever encountered or created. We can come back from viruses and nuclear bombs and colliding with interstellar columns of gamma radiation. AGI is the first thing ever to pose the threat of truly wiping out humanity. And then there is the question of how the economics would play out of it didn’t destroy us, which I have shown informally to not work out very well. At the bare minimum, this demands caution and proactive, defensive measures. The burden is on YOU to prove it’s safe. So please save your “fud” and anything else that does not address the core of the matter.

EGreg 8y ago
I happen to agree the burden is on people to prove it’s safe. But that’s not how things work. Take Climate Change for example. How many people take the uncertainty as a license to keep going off the cliff? Read this story as a possible alernative: http://m.nautil.us/issue/53/monsters/the-last-invention-of-man http://m.nautil.us/issue/53/monsters/the-last-invention-of-m...
chrisfosterelli 8y ago
There was no substance to your comment to address. You can't make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and then demand that you be proved wrong or else require that everyone default to assuming you're right. You made a claim, the burden is on you to support it. You're making many scary claims about AI with no evidence to support your theses, along with a unrelated reference to natural selection. Both of the key arguments that you pointed out, 1) "the substrate for AGI to spring from is basically here or around the corner", and 2) "Human level ai is fundamentally incompatible with human society" were presented without any evidence and are unsupported by nearly all major experts in the field. FUD was not a distraction from your argument but a title for what it is: Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. But, in case you want to read up, here are some experts contradicting your first claim: 1: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608911/is-ai-riding-a-one-trick-pony/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608911/is-ai-riding-a-one... 2: https://www.quantamagazine.org/machine-learning-confronts-the-elephant-in-the-room-20180920/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/machine-learning-confronts-th... 3: https://www.axios.com/artificial-intelligence-pioneer-says-we-need-to-start-over-1513305524-f619efbd-9db0-4947-a9b2-7a4c310a28fe.html https://www.axios.com/artificial-intelligence-pioneer-says-w... And here are some experts contradicting your second claim: 1: https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/positively-shaping-artificial-intelligence/ https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/positively-shaping-a... 2: https://medium.com/@deepmindsafetyresearch/building-safe-artificial-intelligence-52f5f75058f1 https://medium.com/@deepmindsafetyresearch/building-safe-art... 3: https://openai.com/blog/ai-safety-needs-social-scientists/ https://openai.com/blog/ai-safety-needs-social-scientists/ 4: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-intelligence-is-not-a-threat-mdash-yet/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-intell... 5: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602410/no-the-experts-dont-think-superintelligent-ai-is-a-threat-to-humanity/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602410/no-the-experts-don...
- 101001001001 8y ago
  You are wrong. There are no experts in agi because it doesn’t exist. My email is in my bio, please contact me if you want me to guide you through the whole thing and show that you’re wrong. It’s very tiring to repeat myself in comments all the time. Your links boil down to “Hinton says agi is far away” which first of all isn’t even a refutation of what I’m saying really and second he’s a ML person. He’s not an agi person. He’s never built an agi. He doesn’t know.

EGreg 8y ago

I happen to agree the burden is on people to prove it’s safe. But that’s not how things work. Take Climate Change for example. How many people take the uncertainty as a license to keep going off the cliff? Read this story as a possible alernative: http://m.nautil.us/issue/53/monsters/the-last-invention-of-man http://m.nautil.us/issue/53/monsters/the-last-invention-of-m...

chrisfosterelli 8y ago

There was no substance to your comment to address. You can't make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and then demand that you be proved wrong or else require that everyone default to assuming you're right. You made a claim, the burden is on you to support it. You're making many scary claims about AI with no evidence to support your theses, along with a unrelated reference to natural selection. Both of the key arguments that you pointed out, 1) "the substrate for AGI to spring from is basically here or around the corner", and 2) "Human level ai is fundamentally incompatible with human society" were presented without any evidence and are unsupported by nearly all major experts in the field. FUD was not a distraction from your argument but a title for what it is: Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. But, in case you want to read up, here are some experts contradicting your first claim: 1: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608911/is-ai-riding-a-one-trick-pony/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608911/is-ai-riding-a-one... 2: https://www.quantamagazine.org/machine-learning-confronts-the-elephant-in-the-room-20180920/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/machine-learning-confronts-th... 3: https://www.axios.com/artificial-intelligence-pioneer-says-we-need-to-start-over-1513305524-f619efbd-9db0-4947-a9b2-7a4c310a28fe.html https://www.axios.com/artificial-intelligence-pioneer-says-w... And here are some experts contradicting your second claim: 1: https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/positively-shaping-artificial-intelligence/ https://80000hours.org/problem-profiles/positively-shaping-a... 2: https://medium.com/@deepmindsafetyresearch/building-safe-artificial-intelligence-52f5f75058f1 https://medium.com/@deepmindsafetyresearch/building-safe-art... 3: https://openai.com/blog/ai-safety-needs-social-scientists/ https://openai.com/blog/ai-safety-needs-social-scientists/ 4: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-intelligence-is-not-a-threat-mdash-yet/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-intell... 5: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602410/no-the-experts-dont-think-superintelligent-ai-is-a-threat-to-humanity/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602410/no-the-experts-don...

101001001001 8y ago
You are wrong. There are no experts in agi because it doesn’t exist. My email is in my bio, please contact me if you want me to guide you through the whole thing and show that you’re wrong. It’s very tiring to repeat myself in comments all the time. Your links boil down to “Hinton says agi is far away” which first of all isn’t even a refutation of what I’m saying really and second he’s a ML person. He’s not an agi person. He’s never built an agi. He doesn’t know.