3 ms·

So the reason you’re saying it poses the greatest threat is we don’t know its motivations, but then you proceed to explain its motivations as evidence of why i

So the reason you’re saying it poses the greatest threat is we don’t know its motivations, but then you proceed to explain its motivations as evidence of why it is the greatest threat. Look, I’ve seen sci-fi too and there is a lot of literary pathos to mine there, but the idea that this is all going to happen so fast we won’t know what hit us seems to lack any evidence. Of course anything with a high enough risk needs adequate cautions, it’s just I haven’t seen any evidence that given the energy and bandwidth requirements that there’s some sort of singularity we’re blindly stumbling to. Just don’t get to that point. One that’s decades if not centuries away. Meanwhile, effective altruism® could return some donations and clean up some nuclear weapons or carbon instead of just doing whatever sounds best to people who read Malcolm Gladwell books and listen to podcasts.

lossolo 4y ago
> The greatest threat is that we don't know its motivations, but then you proceed to explain its motivations as evidence of why it is the greatest threat. I'm not sure why you are dismissing what I wrote. I gave specific features of that AGI, and if you use pure logic, then these motivations have a clear high probability of being true. It's just one of many scenarios that has a high probability, if we ever develop a self-aware machine. > Of course, anything with a high enough risk needs adequate precautions. It's just that I haven't seen any evidence that, given the energy and bandwidth requirements, there's some sort of singularity we're blindly stumbling towards. Just don't get to that point, one that's decades if not centuries away. > Meanwhile, effective altruism® could return some donations and clean up some nuclear weapons or carbon instead of just doing whatever sounds best to people who read Malcolm Gladwell books and listen to podcasts. Sorry but this looks like straw man. I'm not saying anywhere we are months, years, or even decades from it. As you can read in my other comments about LLMs, I am well aware of the current state of ML and I don't get my knowledge from sci-fi movies (which you implied). We don't even know if it's possible (a self-aware mechanical being). What I'm saying is, if it is possible, then there is a high probability that it poses a threat of a greater caliber than Homo sapiens to the neanderthal. That was my point, nothing more. I didn't write that we need to fund endeavors to stop something that we don't even know is achievable at the moment.
- garbagecoder 4y ago
  >I'm not sure why you are dismissing what I wrote. Because you used circular reasoning to advance a generic point about AI.
  - lossolo 4y ago
    No, this is another straw man from you. You skip over specific words I've written and then project meaning that fits your thesis.

lossolo 4y ago

> The greatest threat is that we don't know its motivations, but then you proceed to explain its motivations as evidence of why it is the greatest threat. I'm not sure why you are dismissing what I wrote. I gave specific features of that AGI, and if you use pure logic, then these motivations have a clear high probability of being true. It's just one of many scenarios that has a high probability, if we ever develop a self-aware machine. > Of course, anything with a high enough risk needs adequate precautions. It's just that I haven't seen any evidence that, given the energy and bandwidth requirements, there's some sort of singularity we're blindly stumbling towards. Just don't get to that point, one that's decades if not centuries away. > Meanwhile, effective altruism® could return some donations and clean up some nuclear weapons or carbon instead of just doing whatever sounds best to people who read Malcolm Gladwell books and listen to podcasts. Sorry but this looks like straw man. I'm not saying anywhere we are months, years, or even decades from it. As you can read in my other comments about LLMs, I am well aware of the current state of ML and I don't get my knowledge from sci-fi movies (which you implied). We don't even know if it's possible (a self-aware mechanical being). What I'm saying is, if it is possible, then there is a high probability that it poses a threat of a greater caliber than Homo sapiens to the neanderthal. That was my point, nothing more. I didn't write that we need to fund endeavors to stop something that we don't even know is achievable at the moment.

garbagecoder 4y ago
>I'm not sure why you are dismissing what I wrote. Because you used circular reasoning to advance a generic point about AI.
- lossolo 4y ago
  No, this is another straw man from you. You skip over specific words I've written and then project meaning that fits your thesis.