5 ms·

"no real world evidence that they will" what is that mean, anyways?

smegsicle 3y ago
let's break it down no: "there isn't any" real world evidence: "reason to believe" that they will become dangerous i think he's referencing how the only reason anyone would think that there's any kind of existential threat is from sci-fi doomerism however i feel like perhaps i missed the point of your comment, if so could you explain?
- mike_ivanov 3y ago
  Evidence necessarily belongs to the past. It is something that already exists - a known fact, an event, etc. How on earth there could be evidence of things that have never been? "There is no evidence that a black swan will be ever found". Hmm. OK.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
goatlover 3y ago
So far, there hasn't been evidence that AI poses an actual danger to human society. There are lots of predictions that it could, or fictional scenarios where it does. But no actual real-world cases.
- mike_ivanov 3y ago
  Let me rephrase. There hasn't been evidence that AI doesn't pose an actual danger to human society. There are lots of predictions that it could not, or fictional scenarios where it does not. But no actual real-world cases. See my point?
  - api 3y ago
    There is no evidence you will become a serial killer, but there is no evidence you won’t. I could certainly construct plausible scenarios where you do and even write a book about it. Therefore we should lock you up now. Banning things on the basis of evidence free speculation is a really dangerous road to go down.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Probabilistically there is some evidence you'll become a serial killer. For example, if you were being hired by law enforcement and you had written a number of books that stated that being a serial killer was a good thing, then you wouldn't get hired. There appears to be a particular type of black and white response in this thread that seemingly ignores that the world is black and white.
    - mike_ivanov 3y ago
      I'm not asking anybody to ban anything. I'm just pointing at a flawed piece of logic. Again - there is no evidence (and cannot be! - by definition) of things that never happened before. Forecasts and opinions are not evidence, that's it.
  - Difwif 3y ago
    This is like someone saying there's no proof of God and then responding with there's no proof that there isn't a God. It's safe to say that the burden of proof falls on the one making outrageous claims which is you.
    - mike_ivanov 3y ago
      By this very logic you should deny global warming. 1) no human-made global catastrophe ever happened before (no evidence) and 2) it's an outrageous claim with severe implications to the economy, social life, etc - so, why bother?
      - Difwif 3y ago

let's break it down no: "there isn't any" real world evidence: "reason to believe" that they will become dangerous i think he's referencing how the only reason anyone would think that there's any kind of existential threat is from sci-fi doomerism however i feel like perhaps i missed the point of your comment, if so could you explain?

mike_ivanov 3y ago
Evidence necessarily belongs to the past. It is something that already exists - a known fact, an event, etc. How on earth there could be evidence of things that have never been? "There is no evidence that a black swan will be ever found". Hmm. OK.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

goatlover 3y ago

So far, there hasn't been evidence that AI poses an actual danger to human society. There are lots of predictions that it could, or fictional scenarios where it does. But no actual real-world cases.

mike_ivanov 3y ago
Let me rephrase. There hasn't been evidence that AI doesn't pose an actual danger to human society. There are lots of predictions that it could not, or fictional scenarios where it does not. But no actual real-world cases. See my point?
- api 3y ago
  There is no evidence you will become a serial killer, but there is no evidence you won’t. I could certainly construct plausible scenarios where you do and even write a book about it. Therefore we should lock you up now. Banning things on the basis of evidence free speculation is a really dangerous road to go down.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Probabilistically there is some evidence you'll become a serial killer. For example, if you were being hired by law enforcement and you had written a number of books that stated that being a serial killer was a good thing, then you wouldn't get hired. There appears to be a particular type of black and white response in this thread that seemingly ignores that the world is black and white.
  - mike_ivanov 3y ago
    I'm not asking anybody to ban anything. I'm just pointing at a flawed piece of logic. Again - there is no evidence (and cannot be! - by definition) of things that never happened before. Forecasts and opinions are not evidence, that's it.
- Difwif 3y ago
  This is like someone saying there's no proof of God and then responding with there's no proof that there isn't a God. It's safe to say that the burden of proof falls on the one making outrageous claims which is you.
  - mike_ivanov 3y ago
    By this very logic you should deny global warming. 1) no human-made global catastrophe ever happened before (no evidence) and 2) it's an outrageous claim with severe implications to the economy, social life, etc - so, why bother?
    - Difwif 3y ago