3 ms·
> is this community concerned about that (perhaps very realistic) outcome, or do their interests end when AI is compliant with its masters? The short of it is
by dwohnitmok 4y ago
> is this community concerned about that (perhaps very realistic) outcome, or do their interests end when AI is compliant with its masters?
The short of it is yes. As far as I'm aware the long-term hope in the Less Wrong community or more generally the AI safety community is that AI becomes available for everyone and under the control of everyone.
But the first, paramount step is to make sure it doesn't destroy everything and recognize that such a guarantee doesn't come for free, but rather requires an enormous amount of work and coordination.
- wahnfrieden 4y agomy original question was what realm of solutions are they advocating I don't take lightly to suggestions that we enact police states, highly authoritarian government controls, and other state or capital extremes that I've seen that community / the alignment folks advocate for as you can find when you look past their concern and fears
- dwohnitmok 4y ago> my original question was what realm of solutions are they advocating They don't really have an answer, which is why they're freaking out. > I don't take lightly to suggestions that we enact police states, highly authoritarian government controls, and other state or capital extremes that I've seen that community / the alignment folks advocate for as you can find when you look past their concern and fears What comments are you thinking of? And what solution would you advocate for in a scenario where creating superhuman AGI that kills everyone is much easier (and probably the default) than creating superhuman AGI that doesn't (basically how do you avoid prisoner's dilemma-esque scenarios given how much power AGI gives its makers right before it kills them)?