3 ms·

If he's a crank, it should be easy to explain specifically why he's wrong. I don't agree with Eliezer on everything, and I often find him obnoxious personally,

If he's a crank, it should be easy to explain specifically why he's wrong. I don't agree with Eliezer on everything, and I often find him obnoxious personally, but being obnoxious isn't the same as being wrong. In general I think it's worth listening to people you disagree with and picking out the good parts of what they have to say. In any case, the broader point is that there are a lot of people concerned with AI risk who don't have a financial stake in Big AI. The vast majority of people posting on https://www.alignmentforum.org/ https://www.alignmentforum.org/ are not Eliezer, and most of them don't work for Big AI either. Lots of them disagree with Eliezer too.

nradov 3y ago
That's not how this works. There is no need to explain why he's wrong. Claims made by cranks without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  Evidence isn't the only valid form of argument. Consider a mathematical proof or a thought experiment, for example.
  - nradov 3y ago
    Show me a mathematical proof then.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
      Given that homo sapiens, the most intelligent species on this planet, has generally made life miserable for all of the other species, I'd like to turn that challenge around: How about a proof that superhuman AI won't harm us? Suppose a nuclear reactor is being installed in your city. Your friend has reviewed the design and has some serious concerns. Your friend thinks the reactor has a significant chance of melting down. You go to the director of the project. The director says: "Oh that's nothing to worry about. I talked to that guy. He didn't have a mathematical proof that the reactor would melt down." Are you reassured?
      - nradov 3y ago
        No, that's not how this work. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. You're just making speculative statements based on zero scientific evidence and a childish misunderstanding of the basic technology.
        0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
        Did you read this post? https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a-list-of-lethalities https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a... It might require context you don't have. Perhaps try one of these intros: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/T98kdFL5bxBWSiE3N/best-introductory-overviews-of-agi-safety https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/T98kdFL5bxBWSiE3N/best-intro...
        nradov 3y ago
        You've got to be kidding. Those are garbage articles containing unsupported, unscientific articles written by worthless grifters and alarmists. The entire LessWrong site is mostly just random people making shit up while trying to seem smart. There may be some useful scraps there but overall it's not a site for serious people. You can do better.
      - smegger001 3y ago
        Thats unreasonable as we all know its impossible to prove a negative, especially about a as yet hypothetical in a new feild of research. As for a nuclear reactor in my city, yeah if my friend doesnt have qualifications to make him capable of evaluating the designs of such a technical and esoteric field and someone who is qualified assured me it was fine I would trust them. If we dont trust experts in their fields about their field then we are no better intellectually than the antivaxers and flatearthers
riversflow 3y ago
> If he's a crank, it should be easy to explain specifically why he's wrong. Sure. The premise that a super intelligent AI can create runaway intelligence on its own is completely insane. How can it iterate? How does it test? Humans run off consensus. We make predictions and test them against physical reality, then have others test them. Information has to be gathered and verified, it's the only rational way to build understanding.
- a_w 3y ago
  > How can it iterate? How does it test? Honest/dumb question - does it need to test? In nature mutations don't test - the 'useful' mutations win. Couldn't a 'super intelligent AI' do the same?
  - riversflow 3y ago
    > the 'useful' mutations win. Thats testing.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  It sounds like you disagree with Eliezer about how AI technology is likely to develop. That's fine, but that doesn't show that he's a crank. I was hoping for something like a really basic factual error. People throughout history have made bold predictions. Sometimes they come true, sometimes they don't. Usually we forget how bold the prediction was at the time -- due to hindsight bias it doesn't seem so bold anymore. Making bold predictions does not automatically make someone a crank.
  - riversflow 3y ago
    He is engaging in magical thinking. I showed a factual error, that AI has neither information gathering and verifying capability or a network of peers to substantiate their hypothesis, and you refuse to engage it.

nradov 3y ago

That's not how this works. There is no need to explain why he's wrong. Claims made by cranks without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
Evidence isn't the only valid form of argument. Consider a mathematical proof or a thought experiment, for example.
- nradov 3y ago
  Show me a mathematical proof then.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
    Given that homo sapiens, the most intelligent species on this planet, has generally made life miserable for all of the other species, I'd like to turn that challenge around: How about a proof that superhuman AI won't harm us? Suppose a nuclear reactor is being installed in your city. Your friend has reviewed the design and has some serious concerns. Your friend thinks the reactor has a significant chance of melting down. You go to the director of the project. The director says: "Oh that's nothing to worry about. I talked to that guy. He didn't have a mathematical proof that the reactor would melt down." Are you reassured?
    - nradov 3y ago
      No, that's not how this work. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. You're just making speculative statements based on zero scientific evidence and a childish misunderstanding of the basic technology.
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
        Did you read this post? https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a-list-of-lethalities https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a... It might require context you don't have. Perhaps try one of these intros: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/T98kdFL5bxBWSiE3N/best-introductory-overviews-of-agi-safety https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/T98kdFL5bxBWSiE3N/best-intro...
        nradov 3y ago
        You've got to be kidding. Those are garbage articles containing unsupported, unscientific articles written by worthless grifters and alarmists. The entire LessWrong site is mostly just random people making shit up while trying to seem smart. There may be some useful scraps there but overall it's not a site for serious people. You can do better.
    - smegger001 3y ago
      Thats unreasonable as we all know its impossible to prove a negative, especially about a as yet hypothetical in a new feild of research. As for a nuclear reactor in my city, yeah if my friend doesnt have qualifications to make him capable of evaluating the designs of such a technical and esoteric field and someone who is qualified assured me it was fine I would trust them. If we dont trust experts in their fields about their field then we are no better intellectually than the antivaxers and flatearthers

riversflow 3y ago

> If he's a crank, it should be easy to explain specifically why he's wrong. Sure. The premise that a super intelligent AI can create runaway intelligence on its own is completely insane. How can it iterate? How does it test? Humans run off consensus. We make predictions and test them against physical reality, then have others test them. Information has to be gathered and verified, it's the only rational way to build understanding.

a_w 3y ago
> How can it iterate? How does it test? Honest/dumb question - does it need to test? In nature mutations don't test - the 'useful' mutations win. Couldn't a 'super intelligent AI' do the same?
- riversflow 3y ago
  > the 'useful' mutations win. Thats testing.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
It sounds like you disagree with Eliezer about how AI technology is likely to develop. That's fine, but that doesn't show that he's a crank. I was hoping for something like a really basic factual error. People throughout history have made bold predictions. Sometimes they come true, sometimes they don't. Usually we forget how bold the prediction was at the time -- due to hindsight bias it doesn't seem so bold anymore. Making bold predictions does not automatically make someone a crank.
- riversflow 3y ago
  He is engaging in magical thinking. I showed a factual error, that AI has neither information gathering and verifying capability or a network of peers to substantiate their hypothesis, and you refuse to engage it.