3 ms·

Oh, I've heard plenty of discussion of positive scenarios as well, including post-scarcity. If you just look for a list of all the current AI tools and startup

Oh, I've heard plenty of discussion of positive scenarios as well, including post-scarcity. If you just look for a list of all the current AI tools and startups that are being built, you can get a pretty good sense of the potential across almost every economic/industrial sphere. Of course, many of these won't work out, but some will and it can give you an idea of what some of the specific benefits could be in the next 5-10 years. I'd say post-scarcity is generally a longer-term possibility unless you believe in a super-fast singularity (which I'm personally skeptical about). But many of the high risk uses are already possible or will become possible soon, so they are more front-of-mind I suppose.

randomdata 3y ago
> I've heard plenty of discussion of positive scenarios as well, including post-scarcity. Everyone has an opinion, but who are the experts (in the subject matter, not some other thing) discussing it?
- danenania 3y ago
  Check out Dwarkesh Patel’s podcast.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    What makes him an expert in the subject matter? A cursory glance suggests that his background is in CS, not anything related to social or humanitarian issues. It is not completely impossible for someone to have expertise in more than one thing, but it is unusual as there is only so much time in the day and building expertise takes a lot of time.
    - danenania 3y ago
      I don’t mean Dwarkesh himself, though he asks great questions. He’s had some very knowledgeable guests. The most recent episode with Paul Christiano has a lot of good discussion on all these topics. I’d suggest evaluating the arguments and ideas more on the merits rather than putting so much emphasis on authority and credentials. I get there can be value there, but no one is really an “expert” in this subject yet and anyone who claims to be probably has an angle.
      - randomdata 3y ago
        > I’d suggest evaluating the arguments and ideas more on the merits rather than putting so much emphasis on authority and credentials. While I agree in general, when it comes to this particular topic where AI presents itself as being human-like, we all already have an understanding at the surface level because of being human and spending our lives around other humans. There is nothing the other people who have the same surface level knowledge will be able to tell you that you haven't already thought up yourself. Furthermore, I'm not sure it is ideas that are lacking. An expert goes deeper than coming up with ideas. That is what people who have other things going on in life are highly unlikely to engage in. > no one is really an “expert” in this subject yet We've been building AI systems for approximately a century now. The first LLMs were developed before the digital computer existed! That's effectively a human lifetime. If that's not sufficient to develop expertise, it may be impossible.
        danenania 3y ago
        I disagree that it is “human-like” in any meaningful sense. It’s completely different. We’ve been trying to build AI for a long time yes, but we only just figured out how to build AI that actually works.
        randomdata 3y ago
        > It’s completely different. In what way? The implementation is completely different, if that is what you mean, but the way humans interpret AI it is the same as far as I can tell. Hell, every concern that has ever been raised about AI is already a human-to-human issue, only imagining that AI will take the place of one of the humans in the conflict/problem. > but we only just figured out how to build AI that actually works. Not at all. For example, AI first beat a world champion human chess player in 1967. We've had AI systems that actually work for a long, long time. Maybe you are actually speaking to what is more commonly referred to as AGI? But there is nothing to suggest we are anywhere close to figuring that out.
        danenania 3y ago

randomdata 3y ago

> I've heard plenty of discussion of positive scenarios as well, including post-scarcity. Everyone has an opinion, but who are the experts (in the subject matter, not some other thing) discussing it?

danenania 3y ago
Check out Dwarkesh Patel’s podcast.
- randomdata 3y ago
  What makes him an expert in the subject matter? A cursory glance suggests that his background is in CS, not anything related to social or humanitarian issues. It is not completely impossible for someone to have expertise in more than one thing, but it is unusual as there is only so much time in the day and building expertise takes a lot of time.
  - danenania 3y ago
    I don’t mean Dwarkesh himself, though he asks great questions. He’s had some very knowledgeable guests. The most recent episode with Paul Christiano has a lot of good discussion on all these topics. I’d suggest evaluating the arguments and ideas more on the merits rather than putting so much emphasis on authority and credentials. I get there can be value there, but no one is really an “expert” in this subject yet and anyone who claims to be probably has an angle.
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > I’d suggest evaluating the arguments and ideas more on the merits rather than putting so much emphasis on authority and credentials. While I agree in general, when it comes to this particular topic where AI presents itself as being human-like, we all already have an understanding at the surface level because of being human and spending our lives around other humans. There is nothing the other people who have the same surface level knowledge will be able to tell you that you haven't already thought up yourself. Furthermore, I'm not sure it is ideas that are lacking. An expert goes deeper than coming up with ideas. That is what people who have other things going on in life are highly unlikely to engage in. > no one is really an “expert” in this subject yet We've been building AI systems for approximately a century now. The first LLMs were developed before the digital computer existed! That's effectively a human lifetime. If that's not sufficient to develop expertise, it may be impossible.
      - danenania 3y ago
        I disagree that it is “human-like” in any meaningful sense. It’s completely different. We’ve been trying to build AI for a long time yes, but we only just figured out how to build AI that actually works.
        randomdata 3y ago
        > It’s completely different. In what way? The implementation is completely different, if that is what you mean, but the way humans interpret AI it is the same as far as I can tell. Hell, every concern that has ever been raised about AI is already a human-to-human issue, only imagining that AI will take the place of one of the humans in the conflict/problem. > but we only just figured out how to build AI that actually works. Not at all. For example, AI first beat a world champion human chess player in 1967. We've had AI systems that actually work for a long, long time. Maybe you are actually speaking to what is more commonly referred to as AGI? But there is nothing to suggest we are anywhere close to figuring that out.
        danenania 3y ago