4 ms·
I don't think this is really worth the read. If you're going to write a piece specifically as a takedown of a viewpoint, in this case, the view that AI risk is
by honkdaddy 4y ago
I don't think this is really worth the read. If you're going to write a piece specifically as a takedown of a viewpoint, in this case, the view that AI risk is real and should be taken seriously, it's worth at mentioning your opponents finer points. There are lots of very brilliant PhD's who've spent their careers working on AI risk, to not even mention any of their arguments makes me feel as if the author is trying to argue against his own idea of what people mean by AI risk, instead reducing the entire idea to his own nomenclature of 'pseudo-traits'.
Reads a bit like an internet atheism blogpost of the early 2000s trying to take down religion through logic alone. Sure, through the specific parameters presented in the piece, the logic is sound, but there's so much more to the topic than what's covered. Presenting one's blogpost as if you've successfully individually debunked an entire field of research is a bit pompous, IMHO.
- gammarator 4y agoIn fairness, lots of brilliant PhDs have spent their careers working on string theory: that doesn’t mean it’s real.
- honkdaddy 4y agoYou're absolutely right! And I'd be similarly dismissive of a blogpost where someone tried to debunk string theory on their own intuition alone without referencing any of the existing research or literature.
- sdwr 4y agoAI risk research feels like a cop-out to me. Honest research takes the risk of being boring or unnecessary. Astronomy is honest. Take a bunch of pictures of stars. Maybe you find something interesting. Maybe no one cares. AI development is honest. Make a robot that can pick up cans of Coke from a table. Will it ever be useful? Maybe, maybe not. But AI risk research feels like a cross between volcano insurance and a protection racket. Pay us to investigate and design safeguards against something that doesn't exist, may never exist, and if it did exist would change the world in ways we can't predict!
- obscur 4y agoSurely this cannot be an argument for whether something is a legitimate field. Surely there are some scientists somewhere studying the risks of a very risky viruses. At least prima facie, such research would neither be boring or unnecessary.
- sdwr 4y agoI'm just trying to say I don't respect AI risk research. It smells too much like people trying to be important. If there ends up being a real AI threat down the road, it's going to be handled by the people who kept their heads down and ground out practical stuff, not the theorists with their heads up their ass (speaking as someone who loves theory).