3 ms·

Ok so what’s your point? We can just ignore it? Or what.

by 6nf 4y ago

RandomLensman 4y ago
AGI worries we probably could ignore until AGI exists but there is now an industry around them which has its own momentum.
- Jcowell 4y ago
  This seems dumb to me. It’s like if the Japanese had the clairvoyant ability to know that nuclear bombs were being built and used and the immediate future and said “We can ignore it until it exists)”. No. You leave Hiroshima and Nagasaki now and not when the freaking bombs are above your head.
  - nradov 4y ago
    You are certainly welcome to leave Earth right now if you like. But the notion that we should waste time worrying about some hypothetical future AGI is just dumb.
  - RandomLensman 4y ago
    We don't have the clairvoyant ability to know that AGI will exist in any future near enough to worry about. It might or it might not - and even if it exists we could get its nature wrong and worry about the wrong things.
    - flangola7 4y ago
      This isn't congruent with the AI research community consensus. There's debate over many points, but that we will develop AGI is seen as a forgone conclusion almost universally. The most pessimistic place it closer to 2100, others say 5 years, most say <25 years. But nobody is saying it won't happen at all, or even that it won't happen beyond the lifetimes of anyone currently living. At best we would be kicking the can down the road and making it out children's or grandchildren's problem. Notably the people closest to the fire, those advancing SOTA AI capabilities and those deepest into alignment/existential risk research, both say it is coming this decade. They predict very different outcomes (crudely summarized: utopia vs extinction), but they both predict the event horizon is on our doorstep. You're right that we might get it wrong, but getting things wrong with a new technology really always means negative outcomes. When you're figuring out rocket science and you realize you worried about the wrong things your rocket doesn't somehow still succeed and make it to space, it blows up in a fireball. It might not blow up because of the specific thing you were paying attention to, but it still blew up.
      - nradov 4y ago
        So what. Research community "consensus" is meaningless when it comes to something that doesn't exist and which we don't even have a clear path to build. It's just a bunch of pontificating clowns engaging in idle speculation. Total waste of time, like trying to predict what space aliens will look like or whatever. It makes for fun sci-fi stories but it's not something that serious people actually care about.
        flangola7 4y ago
        Saying lies and denigration does not make it true. Why should we believe you over the experts for whom this is their life's work? What are your credentials? Where is your experience? You seem to think they're unserious clowns so clearly you have a good reason.
      - RandomLensman 4y ago
        Serious question: do you have a track record of the long-term forecasts of the research community? If they are quite good at this - fair enough.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    Existing AI is not AGI. Existing AI is dangerous. Existing AI is widely deployed and growing. Existing AI is more important to worry about.
nradov 4y ago
Yes, that's my point. We can ignore it until there is some sign of progress towards a true AGI. Show me a machine as intelligent as a mouse. This article is a bit dated but it gives a good explanation of the difference between the powerful but limited tools we have today versus a true AGI. https://www.kurzweilai.net/what-is-artificial-intelligence https://www.kurzweilai.net/what-is-artificial-intelligence

Ok so what’s your point? We can just ignore it? Or what.

by 6nf 4y ago

Ok so what’s your point? We can just ignore it? Or what.

AGI worries we probably could ignore until AGI exists but there is now an industry around them which has its own momentum.

Jcowell 4y ago
This seems dumb to me. It’s like if the Japanese had the clairvoyant ability to know that nuclear bombs were being built and used and the immediate future and said “We can ignore it until it exists)”. No. You leave Hiroshima and Nagasaki now and not when the freaking bombs are above your head.
- nradov 4y ago
  You are certainly welcome to leave Earth right now if you like. But the notion that we should waste time worrying about some hypothetical future AGI is just dumb.
- RandomLensman 4y ago
  We don't have the clairvoyant ability to know that AGI will exist in any future near enough to worry about. It might or it might not - and even if it exists we could get its nature wrong and worry about the wrong things.
  - flangola7 4y ago
    This isn't congruent with the AI research community consensus. There's debate over many points, but that we will develop AGI is seen as a forgone conclusion almost universally. The most pessimistic place it closer to 2100, others say 5 years, most say <25 years. But nobody is saying it won't happen at all, or even that it won't happen beyond the lifetimes of anyone currently living. At best we would be kicking the can down the road and making it out children's or grandchildren's problem. Notably the people closest to the fire, those advancing SOTA AI capabilities and those deepest into alignment/existential risk research, both say it is coming this decade. They predict very different outcomes (crudely summarized: utopia vs extinction), but they both predict the event horizon is on our doorstep. You're right that we might get it wrong, but getting things wrong with a new technology really always means negative outcomes. When you're figuring out rocket science and you realize you worried about the wrong things your rocket doesn't somehow still succeed and make it to space, it blows up in a fireball. It might not blow up because of the specific thing you were paying attention to, but it still blew up.
    - nradov 4y ago
      So what. Research community "consensus" is meaningless when it comes to something that doesn't exist and which we don't even have a clear path to build. It's just a bunch of pontificating clowns engaging in idle speculation. Total waste of time, like trying to predict what space aliens will look like or whatever. It makes for fun sci-fi stories but it's not something that serious people actually care about.
      - flangola7 4y ago
        Saying lies and denigration does not make it true. Why should we believe you over the experts for whom this is their life's work? What are your credentials? Where is your experience? You seem to think they're unserious clowns so clearly you have a good reason.
    - RandomLensman 4y ago
      Serious question: do you have a track record of the long-term forecasts of the research community? If they are quite good at this - fair enough.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Existing AI is not AGI. Existing AI is dangerous. Existing AI is widely deployed and growing. Existing AI is more important to worry about.

nradov 4y ago

Yes, that's my point. We can ignore it until there is some sign of progress towards a true AGI. Show me a machine as intelligent as a mouse. This article is a bit dated but it gives a good explanation of the difference between the powerful but limited tools we have today versus a true AGI. https://www.kurzweilai.net/what-is-artificial-intelligence https://www.kurzweilai.net/what-is-artificial-intelligence