3 ms·

Yeah - and people are famously bad about predicting these events: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BEtzRE2M5m9YEAQpX/there-s-no-fire-alarm-for-artificial-general

Yeah - and people are famously bad about predicting these events: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BEtzRE2M5m9YEAQpX/there-s-no-fire-alarm-for-artificial-general-intelligence https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BEtzRE2M5m9YEAQpX/there-s-no... If it is something that's a hundred plus years out then we'll probably need whatever tech develops in the mean time to help, but since it's hard to know that seems reasonable for people to be working on it now? It's also possible to figure things out before the necessary tech is possible (I think a lot of CS papers in the 60s became more interesting later when the hardware caught up to be more useful, arguably the recent NN stuff falls into this category too).

walleeee 6y ago
> If it is something that's a hundred plus years out then we'll probably need whatever tech develops in the mean time to help Circular justification of technological development is the reason unfriendly AGI is a threat in the first place (and also the reason we are unlikely to see it realized, imo; the internal combustion engine for instance poses existential risks not only to people but to the possibility of machine intelligence). Technology is not a monolith, forms can and do preclude other forms
ketzo 6y ago
Just wanna say I absolutely loved reading that blog post, thanks for the link.
- fighterpilot 6y ago
  Check out the blog post in the comment that's parallel to /u/fossuser above. It's also great.