3 ms·
Right, all we need to do to solve AI is ensure that we pick the right personality to uplift (and perhaps ensure that it has a tabula rasa in a different light c
by theptip 4y ago
Right, all we need to do to solve AI is ensure that we pick the right personality to uplift (and perhaps ensure that it has a tabula rasa in a different light cone in which to stay busy).
(I love the story too but I don’t think it has any merit in AI safety discussions. It doesn’t illuminate anything that was previously unclear; unlike the OP, which illustrates a plausible scenario many have not grokked yet.)
- jvanderbot 4y agoSince TFA was essentially sci-fi, and quite inevitably dystopian, I thought I'd provide something that was essentially sci-fi, and at least not so dystopian. Taking the recommendation for a sci fi series any more seriously than that should be done at your own risk.
- theptip 4y agoMy apologies if my reply came off as snarky. But I think if you're interpreting the OP as sci-fi, you're misreading. Gwern intended it as an illustration of a plausible path to AGI takeoff, in the not-too-distant future. The claim is that this could actually happen, in our lifetime, and with no new technology (as Gwern says, "It might help to imagine a hard takeoff scenario using solely known sorts of NN & scaling effects"). One may reasonably disagree with the claim, by presenting arguments for why takeoff might be harder, or why alignment is easier than this scenario illustrates. But "this scenario could happen" is the explicit, concrete claim.