3 ms·
> Nick Bostrom is a philosopher, not an engineer. If he spent his time actually making things instead of fear mongerng, he might have an appreciation for how tr
by me_me_me 7y ago
> Nick Bostrom is a philosopher, not an engineer. If he spent his time actually making things instead of fear mongerng, he might have an appreciation for how truly difficult it is to actually get things to work, and the challenges that would still confront advanced AI.
I don't see how this argument even works. Lets change a premise and we get:
'Nick Bostrom is a philosopher, not an nuclear physicist.
... he might have an appreciation for how truly difficult it is to actually build a-bomb.'
Therefore he should not speak about potential dangers/threats of nuclear bomb arsenals.
And as we all know we came extremely close to few false-positive MADs.
> His instantaneous end-the-world outcomes are not plausible and will never be realized.
That's unsubstantiated hearsay claim by you. Can you list a single counter argument against runaway AGI?
>Yet he argues for draconian, fascist controls on technology and society that have real negative ramifications.
At this point I am quite certain you have not read a single thing he Bostrom, and only making claims of articles/comments/2ndary sources.
I think it was in Superinteligence, where he opens with a parable how overlooking dangers in short term is beneficial, but once you open pandora box you cant put it back.
He is not against it AI, but thinks we shouldn't happily jump into something without thinking of future outcomes.
Let me give an example.
Say CERN starts studying micro black holes. Those are absolutely safe to create as they 'fizzle out' due to hawkins radiation. So no one should stop CERN from making any precautions so that they accidentally create a black hole that doesn't evaporate?
Right? It's micro black hole they are safe, we have no tech that could create bigger one, and we have total understanding of Physics. No need for regulation or safety talking.