4 ms·

potential risks of AI sounds the opposite of the position of someone who would think technology can solve everything. You're shifting goalposts to protect the i

potential risks of AI sounds the opposite of the position of someone who would think technology can solve everything. You're shifting goalposts to protect the initial narrative.

nl 4y ago
> potential risks of AI sounds the opposite of the position of someone who would think technology can solve everything. Yes, that's a logical conclusion, but it's not right because of the weird "longtermist" logic. Their "AI risk research" is about AI alignment, which is a "longtermist" priority. To repost my previous quote: > Many longtermists reckon that the antidote to the threat from technology is more technology; mastering artificial intelligence will forestall a malevolent AI from enslaving us. They also believe that technological acceleration is morally good in its own right. This is the "acceleratist view" of AI research, of which Nick Bostrom is a prominent proponent: basically he views progress as inevitable, so it's best to accelerate AI that is aligned with human values. See https://nickbostrom.com/papers/openness.pdf https://nickbostrom.com/papers/openness.pdf He also values future lives equally to existing lives (the "longtermist" view) so any timme where we aren't expanding to the stars is morally repugnant: > One recent paper speculates, using loose theoretical considerations based on the rate of increase of entropy, that the loss of potential human lives in our own galactic supercluster is at least ~10^46 per century of delayed colonization. [snip] The effect on total value, then, seems greater for actions that accelerate technological development than for practically any other possible action. Let me requote that: The effect on total value, then, seems greater for actions that accelerate technological development than for practically any other possible action. https://nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste https://nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste I'd highly recommend you read the linked article this discussion is about. It goes into some depth about on these points.

potential risks of AI sounds the opposite of the position of someone who would think technology can solve everything. You're shifting goalposts to protect the initial narrative.

nl 4y ago

> potential risks of AI sounds the opposite of the position of someone who would think technology can solve everything. Yes, that's a logical conclusion, but it's not right because of the weird "longtermist" logic. Their "AI risk research" is about AI alignment, which is a "longtermist" priority. To repost my previous quote: > Many longtermists reckon that the antidote to the threat from technology is more technology; mastering artificial intelligence will forestall a malevolent AI from enslaving us. They also believe that technological acceleration is morally good in its own right. This is the "acceleratist view" of AI research, of which Nick Bostrom is a prominent proponent: basically he views progress as inevitable, so it's best to accelerate AI that is aligned with human values. See https://nickbostrom.com/papers/openness.pdf https://nickbostrom.com/papers/openness.pdf He also values future lives equally to existing lives (the "longtermist" view) so any timme where we aren't expanding to the stars is morally repugnant: > One recent paper speculates, using loose theoretical considerations based on the rate of increase of entropy, that the loss of potential human lives in our own galactic supercluster is at least ~10^46 per century of delayed colonization. [snip] The effect on total value, then, seems greater for actions that accelerate technological development than for practically any other possible action. Let me requote that: The effect on total value, then, seems greater for actions that accelerate technological development than for practically any other possible action. https://nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste https://nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste I'd highly recommend you read the linked article this discussion is about. It goes into some depth about on these points.