4 ms·
I don't think there is any. It's all this alarmist-rokos-basilisk-phpBB nonsense, no code produced, no actual research. What annoys me more is that with his in
by a_bonobo 4y ago
I don't think there is any. It's all this alarmist-rokos-basilisk-phpBB nonsense, no code produced, no actual research.
What annoys me more is that with his institute's closeness to the SV crowd, 'real', 'grounded', better-informed voices like Emily Bender get drowned out. I'm personally far more concerned about the impact these massive models have right now on the environment, on cementing biases, than about some preposterous future ghost of christmas who's coming to kill me.
- comp_throw7 4y agoTrivially false, which you could verify with a 5-second Google search ("eliezer yudkowsky publications"): https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Eliezer-Yudkowsky/2542795 https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Eliezer-Yudkowsky/254...
- a_bonobo 4y agoI'd not call any of those rambling messes publications >By far the greatest danger of Artificial Intelligence is that people conclude too early that they understand it. Of course this problem is not limited to the field of AI. Jacques Monod wrote: "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." (Monod 1974.) My father, a physicist, complained about people making up their own theories of physics; he wanted to know why people did not make up their own theories of chemistry. (Answer: They do.) Nonetheless the problem seems to be unusually acute in Artificial Intelligence. The field of AI has a reputation for making huge promises and then failing to deliver on them. Most observers conclude that AI is hard; as indeed it is. But the embarrassment does not stem from the difficulty. It is difficult to build a star from hydrogen, but the field of stellar astronomy does not have a terrible reputation for promising to build stars and then failing. ???