3 ms·

I'm curious: is there anyone here who thinks: 1. Human-level (or greater) AI is possible. 2. The development of AGI can be prevented, or even slowed by more th

I'm curious: is there anyone here who thinks: 1. Human-level (or greater) AI is possible. 2. The development of AGI can be prevented, or even slowed by more than, let's say, a decade. If there is, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how (2) can be achieved.

joshuamcginnis 3y ago
Much of your question depends on defining "human-level" and AGI. AI is already better at humans at a number of specific tasks. That will only continue to broaden over time until it all aggregates into something that doesn't exist yet but I suspect will look a lot like a multi-modal digital super human. Attempts will be made to slow or deter the effects of technological advances but the evolutionary process will march on nonetheless.
Engineering-MD 3y ago
The whole process is dependent on advanced computer chips. If you prevent these being made, then you can prevent AGI. The question is how to prevent them being made with minimum side effects to other industries.
kromem 3y ago
In all likelihood, the opportunity cost of delaying AGI by a decade is at least tens of millions of human lives. A large part of why we think AGI poses an existential threat is because it's an anchoring bias around theorizing from the 60s when people wondering what should happen when there's something smarter than humans were informing that projection by the misinformed picture of the past where homo sapiens was smarter than Neanderthals and killed them off. That's likely not what happened, with pandemics or climate change as more likely culprits, and instead we were having children with Neanderthals, had cross cultural exchanges in both directions, and don't appear to have been any smarter than they were at the time. The most likely outcome is symbiosis. And intentionally delaying something that will likely advance medical and scientific progress in ways that will save or improve millions of lives because of legacy projections that have been wrong about pretty much every aspect of the technology which has emerged to date including the supposed impossibility of creativity or empathy - I can think of few greater examples of our species cutting off its nose to spite its face. And our insistence on trying to conform the emerging product to fit legacy projections because that's what matches user expectations is one of the dumbest things I've seen in tech in a long time, and the modern equivalent of Ford was building faster horses instead of the car.
majikaja 3y ago
>1. Human-level (or greater) AI is possible. Is the average human that intelligent??

joshuamcginnis 3y ago

Much of your question depends on defining "human-level" and AGI. AI is already better at humans at a number of specific tasks. That will only continue to broaden over time until it all aggregates into something that doesn't exist yet but I suspect will look a lot like a multi-modal digital super human. Attempts will be made to slow or deter the effects of technological advances but the evolutionary process will march on nonetheless.

Engineering-MD 3y ago

The whole process is dependent on advanced computer chips. If you prevent these being made, then you can prevent AGI. The question is how to prevent them being made with minimum side effects to other industries.

kromem 3y ago

In all likelihood, the opportunity cost of delaying AGI by a decade is at least tens of millions of human lives. A large part of why we think AGI poses an existential threat is because it's an anchoring bias around theorizing from the 60s when people wondering what should happen when there's something smarter than humans were informing that projection by the misinformed picture of the past where homo sapiens was smarter than Neanderthals and killed them off. That's likely not what happened, with pandemics or climate change as more likely culprits, and instead we were having children with Neanderthals, had cross cultural exchanges in both directions, and don't appear to have been any smarter than they were at the time. The most likely outcome is symbiosis. And intentionally delaying something that will likely advance medical and scientific progress in ways that will save or improve millions of lives because of legacy projections that have been wrong about pretty much every aspect of the technology which has emerged to date including the supposed impossibility of creativity or empathy - I can think of few greater examples of our species cutting off its nose to spite its face. And our insistence on trying to conform the emerging product to fit legacy projections because that's what matches user expectations is one of the dumbest things I've seen in tech in a long time, and the modern equivalent of Ford was building faster horses instead of the car.

majikaja 3y ago

>1. Human-level (or greater) AI is possible. Is the average human that intelligent??