3 ms·

I was previously undecided on the question of the existential risk of AI. But yesterday I listened to a Munk Debate[0] on the topic and found the detractors of

by mvdtnz 3y ago

I was previously undecided on the question of the existential risk of AI. But yesterday I listened to a Munk Debate[0] on the topic and found the detractors of the moot "AI research and development poses an existential threat" so completely unconvincing that if those people are the top minds in the field I am now genuinely concerned. Their arguments that what they are doing is not a risk basically boil down to "nuh uhhh!" [0] https://pca.st/episode/1fac0e97-1dcc-4b4c-ba50-d2776e6f9d59 https://pca.st/episode/1fac0e97-1dcc-4b4c-ba50-d2776e6f9d59

kalkin 3y ago
Is there a transcript of this available somewhere?
- 93po 3y ago
  I hope AI solves this for us universally very soon. So much content is spoken word and it takes 4 times as long to get information from this format.
casebash 3y ago
Are you thinking about trying to learn more about this issue or do something about it?
zoogeny 3y ago
This entire debate was a shambles, IMO. Neither side really seemed to be making good points. Almost the entire time they were arguing totally different points. One side was insisting AI would be a severe risk, the other side was that it wasn't an existential risk. In the end it was a pointless circular argument where each side retreated to their vague interpretation of the question. What scares me most is that it seems we are wholly unprepared as a species to have this debate. Our technology keeps increasing in power and ease of use, but our ability to understand even the basic difference between "existential risk" and "severe risk" is lacking. And further, it seems that amongst those who are pushing this kind of technology (accelerationists) there is a subtle undertone that some casualties are expected and acceptable during this transformation. Even if it does kill most humans, the world that is left for the rest will be so much better that maybe it is worth it. Few come right out and say it, but that is what it seems they are implying.

by mvdtnz 3y ago

kalkin 3y ago

Is there a transcript of this available somewhere?

93po 3y ago
I hope AI solves this for us universally very soon. So much content is spoken word and it takes 4 times as long to get information from this format.

casebash 3y ago

Are you thinking about trying to learn more about this issue or do something about it?

zoogeny 3y ago

This entire debate was a shambles, IMO. Neither side really seemed to be making good points. Almost the entire time they were arguing totally different points. One side was insisting AI would be a severe risk, the other side was that it wasn't an existential risk. In the end it was a pointless circular argument where each side retreated to their vague interpretation of the question. What scares me most is that it seems we are wholly unprepared as a species to have this debate. Our technology keeps increasing in power and ease of use, but our ability to understand even the basic difference between "existential risk" and "severe risk" is lacking. And further, it seems that amongst those who are pushing this kind of technology (accelerationists) there is a subtle undertone that some casualties are expected and acceptable during this transformation. Even if it does kill most humans, the world that is left for the rest will be so much better that maybe it is worth it. Few come right out and say it, but that is what it seems they are implying.