5 ms·

I am not sure that concern over "AI risk" is fungible with concern over climate change. In my experience, people concerned over superintelligent AI seem to be o

by _dwt 5y ago

I am not sure that concern over "AI risk" is fungible with concern over climate change. In my experience, people concerned over superintelligent AI seem to be of a philosophical and cultural orientation which is entirely aware of the risks of climate change and favors some degree of directed action against it. I am not sure, on the other hand, that I could think of a single "climate denier" I've met who would even parse the phrase "AI risk" in the sense used here. As someone concerned about the "AI risk" of real existing ML systems turning society into a "legibility"-oriented nightmare for real existing humans in the here and now - and not at all concerned that we'll have a general AI that can out-think a human child in the next couple decades - I do share a sense of unease with the religious and eschatological overtones of the "superintelligence" crowd. However, I find a great deal of irony in the fact that I've heard this exact argument - including a recognition of the religious-doom-prophecy-guilt-trip aspect - from global warming skeptics! I have to admit, when the author concludes with a call to action for the "global North", do they include the developing countries (e.g. China, India) likely to drive the bulk of emissions change over the next few decades? Otherwise, it might almost read as the invocation of a scientific doom prophecy to advance an only-somewhat-related agenda. This association unfortunately polarizes people who might be convinced to take more practical steps in the here-and-now - just as is the case with AI.

ThomPete 5y ago
Climate change is always a risk but unlikely existential or at least to the extent it is we know how to handle it pretty well. So well that the number of climate related deaths have plummeted quite dramatically the last 100 years. We are constantly working on impacting nature in ways that make it safer for us whether we are talking building houses, using energy to keep warm or creating higher yield crop. AI isn't necessarily that different in that its probably not actually as dangerous in reality as in theory.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  AI is 98%-likelihood “benign” (i.e. just a tool, which is certainly not benign for those of us that it gets used against!) and 1%-likelihood world-ending catastrophe, like grey goo or nuclear armageddon. (Made-up percentages that don't even sum to 100%.) I don't think we have much to worry about for a while, because brains are pretty efficient, very few computers are as powerful as human brains, and there's a limit to the damage an evil human with internet access can do… isn't there? So I think AI risk is bounded by evil-human risk for the next ten years, at least. Climate change isn't a risk – there's still some uncertainty about it, but it's happening. Saying it's a risk is like saying riptides are a risk while you're in one. No! It's a danger! Get out of it by swimming perpendicularly to the shore!
  - AbrahamParangi 5y ago
    The risk, presumably is the outcomes of climate change- which are uncertain and almost certainly not guaranteed death for everyone
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      “Guaranteed death for everyone” is the current state of affairs. You will die. I will die. This is a terrible bar for “should we care about this issue”? Autocratic dictator of the world says “deciduous trees and the colour yellow are now banned, on pain of death”? Well, it's not guaranteed death for everyone, so why should I care?
      - AbrahamParangi 5y ago
        I didn't say that you shouldn't care about it. I am saying that a 95th percentile negative outcome for climate change is still probably limited in its existential impact, not that you're gonna like it.
    - sammalloy 5y ago
      Wet bulb temperature, clathrate gun, food web collapse, albedo decrease, dormant virus release from permafrost, increase of tropical disease, water scarcity, crop and livestock failure—that /is/ almost certainly guaranteed extinction for humanity. How is this even debatable? We are already on this path.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        But some groups of humans might survive, and might still have descendants tens of thousands of years later! It's not guaranteed that humanity goes extinct; we're pretty creative. (Though the same can't be said for a lot of other species.)
      - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
        Well, expert organizations like the IPCC produce reports on the expected impact of climate change, which don't include human extinction as even a worst-case possibility. I'm the last person who'd claim the experts are always right, but it's gotta be at least debatable.

by _dwt 5y ago

ThomPete 5y ago

Climate change is always a risk but unlikely existential or at least to the extent it is we know how to handle it pretty well. So well that the number of climate related deaths have plummeted quite dramatically the last 100 years. We are constantly working on impacting nature in ways that make it safer for us whether we are talking building houses, using energy to keep warm or creating higher yield crop. AI isn't necessarily that different in that its probably not actually as dangerous in reality as in theory.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
AI is 98%-likelihood “benign” (i.e. just a tool, which is certainly not benign for those of us that it gets used against!) and 1%-likelihood world-ending catastrophe, like grey goo or nuclear armageddon. (Made-up percentages that don't even sum to 100%.) I don't think we have much to worry about for a while, because brains are pretty efficient, very few computers are as powerful as human brains, and there's a limit to the damage an evil human with internet access can do… isn't there? So I think AI risk is bounded by evil-human risk for the next ten years, at least. Climate change isn't a risk – there's still some uncertainty about it, but it's happening. Saying it's a risk is like saying riptides are a risk while you're in one. No! It's a danger! Get out of it by swimming perpendicularly to the shore!
- AbrahamParangi 5y ago
  The risk, presumably is the outcomes of climate change- which are uncertain and almost certainly not guaranteed death for everyone
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    “Guaranteed death for everyone” is the current state of affairs. You will die. I will die. This is a terrible bar for “should we care about this issue”? Autocratic dictator of the world says “deciduous trees and the colour yellow are now banned, on pain of death”? Well, it's not guaranteed death for everyone, so why should I care?
    - AbrahamParangi 5y ago
      I didn't say that you shouldn't care about it. I am saying that a 95th percentile negative outcome for climate change is still probably limited in its existential impact, not that you're gonna like it.
  - sammalloy 5y ago
    Wet bulb temperature, clathrate gun, food web collapse, albedo decrease, dormant virus release from permafrost, increase of tropical disease, water scarcity, crop and livestock failure—that /is/ almost certainly guaranteed extinction for humanity. How is this even debatable? We are already on this path.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      But some groups of humans might survive, and might still have descendants tens of thousands of years later! It's not guaranteed that humanity goes extinct; we're pretty creative. (Though the same can't be said for a lot of other species.)
    - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
      Well, expert organizations like the IPCC produce reports on the expected impact of climate change, which don't include human extinction as even a worst-case possibility. I'm the last person who'd claim the experts are always right, but it's gotta be at least debatable.