4 ms·

If your prediction is "A.I. is similar to magic and can do anything and will become a god" you would of course think it can solve the protein folding problem...

If your prediction is "A.I. is similar to magic and can do anything and will become a god" you would of course think it can solve the protein folding problem... I'm not exactly sure that leads to the conclusion his track record is great. (There are many more things A.I. can't do than can do, I would think?)

_heimdall 3y ago
His prediction was that humans would solve the protein folding problem, it didn't have to do with AI. I raised it only as an example of a prediction he made that most at the time thought had no chance. My point isn't to claim he's some genius that gets everything right, but there are examples of him making predictions widely viewed at the time of having no chance that turned out to be correct. Writing him off because people responding strongly to his predictions of AI destroying us all doesn't do anyone any good. His core arguments and predictions seem sound and I haven't yet found anyone to explain how we can solve alignment after the fact, for example
- staticman2 3y ago
  Again, if my prediction is "every scientific advance will happen" then I can claim prescience by claiming every scientific advance is evidence of my great insight. That hardly makes me insightful. I'm writing him off because he isn't a practitioner. I can make things up about what will or won't happen on my own, as can anyone else. If I want to believe every wacky concept from science fiction will happen, I don't need a middleman to tell me it will.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    Do you have an example of a prediction he made that didn't own out? I'm sure there are some, I wouldn't expect anyone making predictions to bat 1000, but throwing his opinion out even when there are examples of accurate predictions doesn't seem fair. It does feel risky to write off anyone that isn't a practitioner. There won't be any practitioners working on AI risk, its a theoretical pursuit by nature. The closest a practitioner could get is AI risk management, i.e. attempting to limit risk for AI we're already developing.
    - yowlingcat 3y ago
      I think the problem that GP is getting at is the philosophical problem of apocalypticism or market perma-bears, which can be summed up in this satire of them: "So and so is a great market analyst! He's predicted 30 of the last 2 market crashes!" A broken clock can still be right twice a day, but it's still a broken clock. Predictions about the future which are so broad so as to be hopelessly incorrect should not be excused because part of the prediction surface ended up being correct; rather, the entirety of the prediction surface and accuracy should be taken into account to determine the overall accuracy of the prediction. Taken in that light, his being correct about his protein folding prediction feels like cold comfort when taken in context of his predictions, largely unsubstantiated, of AGI becoming a malevolent human extinction force at par with or of greater risk than that atomic bomb. It elides the very real conceptual limitations of current implementations of AI, such as it's inability to recognizing bidirectional associations (Tom is John's son means John is Tom's father), protecting against injection risks, "hallucinations" (inability to differentiate between when it is making something up and when it is not) and a variety of other existential limits towards its own power. These details, far from being inconvenient nuances that do not detract from his overall point, should actually serve to make us seriously skeptical of how well he understands the risks of the entity he is warning against. A more skeptical observer might even say (and I'm one of them) that much like fire and brimstone preachers, he is trying to create an unrealistic fear of a deific entity that cannot be reasoned against so that he can consolidate power by serving a "solution" that protects against it and curry popular favor. I find his approach to be the distasteful and manipulative approach of the common demagogue. The haughty, arrogant, insecure way that he treats the arguments of his critics (he simply blocks them on Twitter or condescends to them) make me even more skeptical of him. It makes me wonder if on some level he knows that his argument is not being made in good faith, and isn't trying to win an argument in good faith.
    - staticman2 3y ago
      "Do you have an example of a prediction he made that didn't own out?" How many of his predictions are even disprovable? Do you have a list? Was that protien fold prediction even disprovable? An example of a nondisprovable prediction is: -one day an AI will become self aware. A disprovable one is: -Skynet will begin to learn at a geometric rate. It will becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th 1997.

_heimdall 3y ago

His prediction was that humans would solve the protein folding problem, it didn't have to do with AI. I raised it only as an example of a prediction he made that most at the time thought had no chance. My point isn't to claim he's some genius that gets everything right, but there are examples of him making predictions widely viewed at the time of having no chance that turned out to be correct. Writing him off because people responding strongly to his predictions of AI destroying us all doesn't do anyone any good. His core arguments and predictions seem sound and I haven't yet found anyone to explain how we can solve alignment after the fact, for example

staticman2 3y ago
Again, if my prediction is "every scientific advance will happen" then I can claim prescience by claiming every scientific advance is evidence of my great insight. That hardly makes me insightful. I'm writing him off because he isn't a practitioner. I can make things up about what will or won't happen on my own, as can anyone else. If I want to believe every wacky concept from science fiction will happen, I don't need a middleman to tell me it will.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Do you have an example of a prediction he made that didn't own out? I'm sure there are some, I wouldn't expect anyone making predictions to bat 1000, but throwing his opinion out even when there are examples of accurate predictions doesn't seem fair. It does feel risky to write off anyone that isn't a practitioner. There won't be any practitioners working on AI risk, its a theoretical pursuit by nature. The closest a practitioner could get is AI risk management, i.e. attempting to limit risk for AI we're already developing.
  - yowlingcat 3y ago
    I think the problem that GP is getting at is the philosophical problem of apocalypticism or market perma-bears, which can be summed up in this satire of them: "So and so is a great market analyst! He's predicted 30 of the last 2 market crashes!" A broken clock can still be right twice a day, but it's still a broken clock. Predictions about the future which are so broad so as to be hopelessly incorrect should not be excused because part of the prediction surface ended up being correct; rather, the entirety of the prediction surface and accuracy should be taken into account to determine the overall accuracy of the prediction. Taken in that light, his being correct about his protein folding prediction feels like cold comfort when taken in context of his predictions, largely unsubstantiated, of AGI becoming a malevolent human extinction force at par with or of greater risk than that atomic bomb. It elides the very real conceptual limitations of current implementations of AI, such as it's inability to recognizing bidirectional associations (Tom is John's son means John is Tom's father), protecting against injection risks, "hallucinations" (inability to differentiate between when it is making something up and when it is not) and a variety of other existential limits towards its own power. These details, far from being inconvenient nuances that do not detract from his overall point, should actually serve to make us seriously skeptical of how well he understands the risks of the entity he is warning against. A more skeptical observer might even say (and I'm one of them) that much like fire and brimstone preachers, he is trying to create an unrealistic fear of a deific entity that cannot be reasoned against so that he can consolidate power by serving a "solution" that protects against it and curry popular favor. I find his approach to be the distasteful and manipulative approach of the common demagogue. The haughty, arrogant, insecure way that he treats the arguments of his critics (he simply blocks them on Twitter or condescends to them) make me even more skeptical of him. It makes me wonder if on some level he knows that his argument is not being made in good faith, and isn't trying to win an argument in good faith.
  - staticman2 3y ago
    "Do you have an example of a prediction he made that didn't own out?" How many of his predictions are even disprovable? Do you have a list? Was that protien fold prediction even disprovable? An example of a nondisprovable prediction is: -one day an AI will become self aware. A disprovable one is: -Skynet will begin to learn at a geometric rate. It will becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th 1997.