3 ms·
I think between point 3 and 4 there is a leap to talking about “danger”. Perhaps the disagreement is about what one calls “danger”. I had perhaps mistakenly ass
by patch_cable 3y ago
I think between point 3 and 4 there is a leap to talking about “danger”. Perhaps the disagreement is about what one calls “danger”. I had perhaps mistakenly assumed we were talking about an extinction risk. I’ll grant you concerns about scaling up things like surveillance but there is a leap to being an existential risk that I’m still not following.
- patrec 3y agoThe default assumption ought to be that anything that's very fast, very smart, goal-directed, self-improving, and self-replicating spells trouble, no?
- cwkoss 3y agoAI will not have the instinctual drives for domination or hunger that humans do. It seems likely that the majority of AI projects will be reasonably well aligned by default, so I think 1000 AIs monitoring what the others are doing is a lot safer than a single global consortium megaproject that humans can likely only inadequately control. The only reasonable defense against rogue AI is prosocial AI.