4 ms·
I'm not sure what you mean by an AGI equivalent to a cockroach, but let's take it for granted that cockroaches can do things AIs still can't. AIs can also do a
by kalkin 4y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by an AGI equivalent to a cockroach, but let's take it for granted that cockroaches can do things AIs still can't. AIs can also do a lot of things that cockroaches can't, including plenty that until recently seemed far out of reach (translation, superhuman Go play, illustration). Why would we expect intelligence to get smoothly better along a total ordering before it's dangerous? Human capabilities don't work like that.
Re 100% hypothetical: this seems like a pretty useless heuristic. Climate change, the health impact of leaded gas, and the nuclear bomb were all hypothetical, until they weren't. For that matter, if something isn't at least a little bit hypothetical there's no point in worrying at all; it's a done deal!
The alien invasion analogy seems like it suggests the heuristic you're actually using is "wild scifi thing so not worrying". This is a better option than "still hypothetical so not worrying" but still doesn't seem reliable.
- nradov 4y agoWe have a lot of dangerous technologies which exist today and are either actively killing people, or could if they are actually used. It's silly to worry about something which doesn't exist, and for which we don't even have a clear path to build. It's like someone in 15th century Milan seeing Leonardo da Vinci's design for a helicopter (aerial screw) and worrying about attack helicopter gunships coming to destroy their city.
- kalkin 4y agoThat principle would have Einstein laughing off Szilard instead of sending him along to FDR. But sure, if AGI were on the order of five centuries away, dismissal would be the right take. I don't see much reason for your confidence in that but I hope it's there!