4 ms·

A big aspect of the problem is what you might call celebrity worship. People think that because someone is accomplished in an area, we should care what they hav

A big aspect of the problem is what you might call celebrity worship. People think that because someone is accomplished in an area, we should care what they have to say in another. And AI as in stats and linear algebra has nothing to do with any of the stuff about societal implications or philosophy. So you get a mixed bag of views that basically parallel what laypeople might think, because you're not talking to these people about stuff they're experts in. 1000 years ago an expert in materials and chemicals (say) could build a mirror but still might belive it's a window into the soul or something. The supernatural and practical parts have nothing to do with each other and don't require overlapping expertise.

pixl97 3y ago
As a counterpoint, a good number of people worried about AI think about it this way "Think of human intelligence capability merged with machine capability". There is nothing supernatural with that line of thinking. As a human you have some very strict evolutionary limits to the peak of your intelligence. You can't overclock your brain, nor can you easily extend its capabilities outside of the limits of slow analog inputs (eyeballs/ears). It would be the peak of human hubris to think we are the most optimal form of intelligence possible because we are the most optimal form of intelligence that currently exists. I personally believe that far more intelligent architectures than us are possible. What I do not have the answer for is if and when we'll produce them. But if we do, and especially in the short term when the greed of humankind is still limitless, then it will be the death of us.