4 ms·

>We have lots of time to consider these things carefully and to react with calm prudence. This is what's so insidious about this debate, people are completely

>We have lots of time to consider these things carefully and to react with calm prudence. This is what's so insidious about this debate, people are completely unable to reason with uncertainty. No, you do not know that we have "lots of time". Maybe we do, maybe we don't. But we do know that acting too late is far more dangerous than acting too early. Thus we should be biased towards implementing safeguards and guardrails now. >and will distract from the actual risks that AI as it exists right now poses. Perhaps this is right, and I have plenty of sympathy for this. But the answer is not to pretend there is no x-risk concern at all. The answer is to make sure we're taking seriously all manner of AI risk. Once we all agree we should be having these discussions, it will be much easier to discuss the more immediate risks as well.

JohnFen 3y ago
> But the answer is not to pretend there is no x-risk concern at all. The answer is to make sure we're taking seriously all manner of AI risk. I entirely agree, but that's not what's happening. What's happening is that some people are focusing entirely on the most extreme, and extremely unlikely risks and completely ignoring the much more likely risks. Between the extreme hype levels and the fearmongering from influential people, the pool is well poisoned and having a reasonable discussion about risks is essentially impossible. > Once we all agree we should be having these discussions, it will be much easier to discuss the more immediate risks as well. I don't think anyone is thinking we don't need to have these discussions. But the discussions that we need to have aren't the ones we're having.