4 ms·

Define canonical, but the encyclopedia is a great start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artificial_general_intelligence https://en.wikipedi

Define canonical, but the encyclopedia is a great start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artificial_general_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artifici... Fascinating that even Turing had considered the possibility.

tshaddox 4y ago
That’s much broader though. It covers the general concept of all potential risks with AI, but I don’t think that’s what Chalmers is asking for. I believe Chalmers is referring specifically to several recent high-profile claims that AI research has a very high likelihood of resulting in the destruction of all humans in the near future and that all AI research should be immediately halted and/or regulated very strictly.
- zug_zug 4y ago
  No it's not. The title of the article is "existential risks ..." meaning risks that could end mankind's existence.
ChancyChance 4y ago
"Concerns about superintelligence have been voiced by leading computer scientists and tech CEOs such as Geoffrey Hinton,[6] Alan Turing,[a] Elon Musk,[9] and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman." Oh my, the implications of this sentence are staggering. Equating Musk on the same level of Turing is the definition of a juxtaposition, but that's not even my point: the second juxtaposition is putting inventors of computing theory next to profit-driven egos trying to make a buck. These two layers themselves indicate the table stakes are already tilted in the favor or recklessness.
- mitthrowaway2 4y ago
  It's a wikipedia article, and that sentence is intended to establish that the topic is notable: that "serious people take it seriously". It needs to establish this in the minds of a very diverse group of readers. For some readers, Alan Turing is a serious person whose opinion matters; for others, Elon Musk is a serious person whose opinion matters; for others, nobody's opinion matters except their own.
  - ChancyChance 4y ago
    That's a really good explanation I hadn't thought of: an example of deploying both-side-ism when both-side-ism is desperately needed. Shrewd, but I wonder if it was intentional or just the outcome of an editing war of egos.

tshaddox 4y ago

That’s much broader though. It covers the general concept of all potential risks with AI, but I don’t think that’s what Chalmers is asking for. I believe Chalmers is referring specifically to several recent high-profile claims that AI research has a very high likelihood of resulting in the destruction of all humans in the near future and that all AI research should be immediately halted and/or regulated very strictly.

zug_zug 4y ago
No it's not. The title of the article is "existential risks ..." meaning risks that could end mankind's existence.

ChancyChance 4y ago

"Concerns about superintelligence have been voiced by leading computer scientists and tech CEOs such as Geoffrey Hinton,[6] Alan Turing,[a] Elon Musk,[9] and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman." Oh my, the implications of this sentence are staggering. Equating Musk on the same level of Turing is the definition of a juxtaposition, but that's not even my point: the second juxtaposition is putting inventors of computing theory next to profit-driven egos trying to make a buck. These two layers themselves indicate the table stakes are already tilted in the favor or recklessness.

mitthrowaway2 4y ago
It's a wikipedia article, and that sentence is intended to establish that the topic is notable: that "serious people take it seriously". It needs to establish this in the minds of a very diverse group of readers. For some readers, Alan Turing is a serious person whose opinion matters; for others, Elon Musk is a serious person whose opinion matters; for others, nobody's opinion matters except their own.
- ChancyChance 4y ago
  That's a really good explanation I hadn't thought of: an example of deploying both-side-ism when both-side-ism is desperately needed. Shrewd, but I wonder if it was intentional or just the outcome of an editing war of egos.