4 ms·

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 migh

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
  In retrospect, you can find tangible proof from way back for anything that gets accepted as true. The comparison was with how climate change was discussed in the public sphere. However prominent the fossil fuel companies' influence on public discourse was at the time, the issues were not taken seriously (and sill aren't by very many). The industry's attempts to exert influence at the time were also obviously not widely known. Rather than looking for similarities, I find the differences between the public discussions (about AI safety / climate change) quite striking. Rather than stonewall and distract, the companies involved are being proactive and letting the discussion happen. Of course, their motivation is some combination of attampted regulatory capture, virtue signaling and genuine concern, the ratios of which I won't presume to guess. Nevertheless, this is playing out completely differently so for from e.g. tobacco, human cloning, CFCs or oil.

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
In retrospect, you can find tangible proof from way back for anything that gets accepted as true. The comparison was with how climate change was discussed in the public sphere. However prominent the fossil fuel companies' influence on public discourse was at the time, the issues were not taken seriously (and sill aren't by very many). The industry's attempts to exert influence at the time were also obviously not widely known. Rather than looking for similarities, I find the differences between the public discussions (about AI safety / climate change) quite striking. Rather than stonewall and distract, the companies involved are being proactive and letting the discussion happen. Of course, their motivation is some combination of attampted regulatory capture, virtue signaling and genuine concern, the ratios of which I won't presume to guess. Nevertheless, this is playing out completely differently so for from e.g. tobacco, human cloning, CFCs or oil.