3 ms·
Could have been a lot more about Bostrom's ideas in this article, given the title. But my hunch is that the kind of philosophy enthusiast who writes for the New
by theoh 8y ago
Could have been a lot more about Bostrom's ideas in this article, given the title. But my hunch is that the kind of philosophy enthusiast who writes for the New Yorker doesn't want to dwell on Bostrom's ideas (or those Less Wrong guys) in any way; it's a question of seriousness.
- dwd 8y agoGood way to make your article about games and AI (fun and cool stuff) very depressing. The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else. The AI runs on a different timescale than you do; by the time your neurons finish thinking the words "I should do something" you have already lost. - Eliezer Yudkowsky
- theoh 8y agoI don't think the omission is because discussing Bostrom or Yudkowsky's ideas would genuinely be depressing. It's because the writer is a snob, or at least doesn't rate them as intellectuals. I kind of agree with him.
- dwd 8y agoI would have to agree with you there - after flicking through Bostrom's latest "work in progress" thesis I came away thinking it was quite underwhelming.