3 ms·
Yep, this is key. With climate change maybe we should be alarmed now, but few people argue that human extinction without our lifetimes is a possible outcome of
by yanderekko 3y ago
Yep, this is key. With climate change maybe we should be alarmed now, but few people argue that human extinction without our lifetimes is a possible outcome of inaction in the current argument.
Unfortunately, with AI things are different. By the time humans notice a real problem, we may be months if not hours away from death.
- mattdeboard 3y agoAnything to distract from the climate crisis huh Mac
- yanderekko 3y agoJust like the climate crisis is a distraction from the "no 2nd season of Firefly" crisis, sure.
- nightfly 3y agoHow do you envision this AI caused extinction happening?
- yanderekko 3y agoHere's an influential article on the subject: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a-list-of-lethalities https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a... The basic idea is that once AGI hits an unknown capability threshold it will likely recursively self-improve into something very dangerous and difficult to control, and will likely be able to come up with an effective plan to remove any obstacles to its intended desires, ie. humans. People have varying degrees of confidence in this scenario, but even if you peg it at like a 10% likelihood you're basically conceding that it's the single most important policy issue in the current political climate.
- dns_snek 3y agoWhat if I peg the likelihood of an AI extinction event at 0.01%? What if the likelihood of AI "solving" climate change is 10% and the alternative is human extinction? Can we agree that coming up with sci-fi scenarios and assigning arbitrary likelihood figures to them is pointless?