Thats not a hypothesis in the scientific sense, that is a scientifically-based speculation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.

Thats not a hypothesis in the scientific sense, that is a scientifically-based speculation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method btw, does SIAI, et al, actually align to a common speculation that logically unfolds to the notion of 'saving the world'? Could you send me a link? The best I could find is in this pdf - http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf - pages 18, 19 gives an overview of this paper: http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf http://singinst.org/upload/artificial-intelligence-risk.pdf I believe the paper is intended to explore possible risks - not to state scientific hypotheses. Is it science that a super-intelligence will emerge at all? Is it science what the timing of the onset of super-intelligence will be? How about the transition speed of the onset? Is it proven or accepted that this notion of 'manipulation of human goals' is meaningfully defined or even a negative thing? Is it proven that Friendly AI would prevent any set of bad scenarios from occurring? No.. of course not. Each of these points is discussed as speculation in a general discussion of AI risks. To take a stacked set of speculations, and say you are 'saving the world' - I don't know how you get there without religion.