4 ms·

This is way better than the open letter. It's much clearer and much more concise, and, maybe most importantly, it simply raises awareness rather than advocating

This is way better than the open letter. It's much clearer and much more concise, and, maybe most importantly, it simply raises awareness rather than advocating for any particular solution. The goal appears to have been to make a statement that's non-obvious (to society at large) yet also can achieve agreement among many AI notables. (Not every AI notable agrees though--for example, LeCun did not sign, and I expect that he disagrees.)

a_bonobo 3y ago
> it simply raises awareness I don't think it simply raises awareness - it's a biased statement. Personally, I don't think the advocated event is likely to happen. It feels a bit like the current trans panic in the US: you can 'raise awareness' of trans people doing this or that imagined bad thing, and then use that panic to push your own agenda. In OpenAI's case, they seem to push for having themselves be in control of AI, which goes counter to what, for example, the EU is pushing for.
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  In what sense is this a 'biased statement' exactly? If a dozen of the top climate scientists put out a statement saying that fighting climate change should be a serious priority (even if they can't agree on one easy solution) would that also be 'biased'?
  - a_bonobo 3y ago
    Climate change is a generally accepted phenomenon. Extinction risk due to AI is not a generally accepted phenomenon.
    - sebzim4500 3y ago
      Now it is, when climate scientists were first sounding the horn they got the same response that these people are getting now. For example: "This signatory might have alterior motives, so we can disregard the whole statement" "We haven't actually seen a superintelligent AI/manmade climate change due to CO2 yet, so what's the big deal?" "Sure maybe it's a problem, but what's your solution? Best to ignore it" "Let's focus on the real issues, like not enough women working in the oil industry"
      - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        That's curiously the standard crackpot line. "They doubted Einstein! They doubted Newton! Now they doubt me!" As if an incantation of famous names automatically makes the crackpot legitimate.
        anonydsfsfs 3y ago
        The signatories on this are not crackpots. Hinton is incredibly influential, and he quit his job at Google so he could "freely speak out about the risks of A.I."
        JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        Yet the lame rationalization was similar to that of a crackpot (previous comment). The correct expression is as you so correctly point out: to appeal to the authority of the source.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
        But that is the point. Just because scientific community is on agreement does not guarantee that they are correct. It simply signifies that they agree on something. Note, language shift from 'tinfoil hat' ( because tinfoil hat stopped being an appropriate insult after so many of their conspiracy theories - also a keyword - became proven ) to crackpot.
      - a_bonobo 3y ago
        We have had tangible proof for climate change for more than 80 years; predictions from 1896, with good data from the 1960s. What you are falling for are fossil industry talking points. We have had not any proof that AI will pose a threat as OpenAI and OP's link outline; nor will we have any similar proof any time soon.
        staunton 3y ago
    - pixl97 3y ago
      >Extinction risk due to AI is not a generally accepted phenomenon Why? You, as a species, are the pinnacle of NI, natural intelligence. And with this power that we've been given we've driven the majority of large species, and countless smaller species to extinction. To think it outside the realms of possibility that we could develop an artificial species that is more intelligent than us is bizarre to me. It would be like saying "We cannot develop a plane that does X better than a bird, because birds are the pinnacle of natural flying evolution". Intelligence is a meta-tool, it is the tool that drives tools. Humanity succeeded above all other species because of its tool using ability. And now many of us are hell bent on creating ever more powerful tool using intelligences. To believe there is no risk here is odd in my eyes.
    - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
      Perhaps open letters like this are an important step on the path to a phenomenon becoming generally accepted. I think this is called "establishing consensus".
  - deltaninenine 3y ago
    It is technically biased. But biased towards truth.
  - revelio 3y ago
    Yes it would? Why do you think it wouldn't?

a_bonobo 3y ago

> it simply raises awareness I don't think it simply raises awareness - it's a biased statement. Personally, I don't think the advocated event is likely to happen. It feels a bit like the current trans panic in the US: you can 'raise awareness' of trans people doing this or that imagined bad thing, and then use that panic to push your own agenda. In OpenAI's case, they seem to push for having themselves be in control of AI, which goes counter to what, for example, the EU is pushing for.

sebzim4500 3y ago
In what sense is this a 'biased statement' exactly? If a dozen of the top climate scientists put out a statement saying that fighting climate change should be a serious priority (even if they can't agree on one easy solution) would that also be 'biased'?
- a_bonobo 3y ago
  Climate change is a generally accepted phenomenon. Extinction risk due to AI is not a generally accepted phenomenon.
  - sebzim4500 3y ago
    Now it is, when climate scientists were first sounding the horn they got the same response that these people are getting now. For example: "This signatory might have alterior motives, so we can disregard the whole statement" "We haven't actually seen a superintelligent AI/manmade climate change due to CO2 yet, so what's the big deal?" "Sure maybe it's a problem, but what's your solution? Best to ignore it" "Let's focus on the real issues, like not enough women working in the oil industry"
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      That's curiously the standard crackpot line. "They doubted Einstein! They doubted Newton! Now they doubt me!" As if an incantation of famous names automatically makes the crackpot legitimate.
      - anonydsfsfs 3y ago
        The signatories on this are not crackpots. Hinton is incredibly influential, and he quit his job at Google so he could "freely speak out about the risks of A.I."
        JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        Yet the lame rationalization was similar to that of a crackpot (previous comment). The correct expression is as you so correctly point out: to appeal to the authority of the source.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
        But that is the point. Just because scientific community is on agreement does not guarantee that they are correct. It simply signifies that they agree on something. Note, language shift from 'tinfoil hat' ( because tinfoil hat stopped being an appropriate insult after so many of their conspiracy theories - also a keyword - became proven ) to crackpot.
    - a_bonobo 3y ago
      We have had tangible proof for climate change for more than 80 years; predictions from 1896, with good data from the 1960s. What you are falling for are fossil industry talking points. We have had not any proof that AI will pose a threat as OpenAI and OP's link outline; nor will we have any similar proof any time soon.
      - staunton 3y ago
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >Extinction risk due to AI is not a generally accepted phenomenon Why? You, as a species, are the pinnacle of NI, natural intelligence. And with this power that we've been given we've driven the majority of large species, and countless smaller species to extinction. To think it outside the realms of possibility that we could develop an artificial species that is more intelligent than us is bizarre to me. It would be like saying "We cannot develop a plane that does X better than a bird, because birds are the pinnacle of natural flying evolution". Intelligence is a meta-tool, it is the tool that drives tools. Humanity succeeded above all other species because of its tool using ability. And now many of us are hell bent on creating ever more powerful tool using intelligences. To believe there is no risk here is odd in my eyes.
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    Perhaps open letters like this are an important step on the path to a phenomenon becoming generally accepted. I think this is called "establishing consensus".
- deltaninenine 3y ago
  It is technically biased. But biased towards truth.
- revelio 3y ago
  Yes it would? Why do you think it wouldn't?