3 ms·

That's exactly what I am saying. Since humanity has to bet the lives of our children on something very new and unpredictable, I would bet mine on the top 3 scie

That's exactly what I am saying. Since humanity has to bet the lives of our children on something very new and unpredictable, I would bet mine on the top 3 scientists and not your opinion. Sorry.they must be definition make better predictions than you and me.

kromem 3y ago
Would you bet that Oppenheimer would have by definition made better predictions how the bomb was going to change the future of war than someone who understood the summary of the bomb's technical effects from the scientists but also had studied and researched geopolitical diplomacy changes resulting from advances in war technologies? There's more to predicting the impact and evolution of technology than simply the mechanics of how it is being built today and will be built tomorrow (the area of expertise where they are more likely to be accurate). And keep in mind that Hinton's alarm was sparked by the fact he was wrong about how the technology was developing, seeing a LLM explain a joke it had never seen before - a capability he specifically hadn't thought it would develop. So it was his failure to successfully predict how the tech would develop that caused him to go warning about how the tech might develop. Maybe we should be taking those warnings with the grain of salt they are due coming from experts who were broadly wrong about what was going to be possible in the near future, let alone the far future. It took everyone by surprise - so there was no shame in being wrong. But these aren't exactly AI prophets with a stellar track record of prediction even if they have a stellar track record of research and development.
- arisAlexis 3y ago
  We disagree on what the question is. If we are talking about if an atomic bomb could erode the atmosphere I would ask Oppenheimer and not a politician or sociologist. If we don't agree on the nature of the question it's impossible to have discourse. It seems to me that you are confusing x-risk with societal downsides. I , and they, are talking about extinction risks. Has nothing to do with society. Arms,bioweapons and hacking have nothing to to with sociologists.
  - kromem 3y ago
    And how do you think extinction risk for AI can come about? In a self-contained bubble? The idea that AGI poses an extinction risk like the notion of a chain atomic reaction igniting the atmosphere as opposed to posing risk more like multiple nation states pointing nukes at each other in a chain reaction of retaliation is borderline laughable. The only way in which AGI poses risk is in its interactions with other systems and infrastructure, which is where knowledge of how an AGI is built is far less relevant than other sources of knowledge. In an air gapped system no one interacts with AGI existing can and will never bring about any harm at all, and I would seriously doubt any self-respecting scientist would argue differently.
    - arisAlexis 3y ago
      There are extremely many books and articles about the subject.its like me asking " wtf gravity bends time? That's ridiculous lol". But science doesn't work that way. If you want you can read the bibliography. If not, you can argue like this.

kromem 3y ago

Would you bet that Oppenheimer would have by definition made better predictions how the bomb was going to change the future of war than someone who understood the summary of the bomb's technical effects from the scientists but also had studied and researched geopolitical diplomacy changes resulting from advances in war technologies? There's more to predicting the impact and evolution of technology than simply the mechanics of how it is being built today and will be built tomorrow (the area of expertise where they are more likely to be accurate). And keep in mind that Hinton's alarm was sparked by the fact he was wrong about how the technology was developing, seeing a LLM explain a joke it had never seen before - a capability he specifically hadn't thought it would develop. So it was his failure to successfully predict how the tech would develop that caused him to go warning about how the tech might develop. Maybe we should be taking those warnings with the grain of salt they are due coming from experts who were broadly wrong about what was going to be possible in the near future, let alone the far future. It took everyone by surprise - so there was no shame in being wrong. But these aren't exactly AI prophets with a stellar track record of prediction even if they have a stellar track record of research and development.

arisAlexis 3y ago
We disagree on what the question is. If we are talking about if an atomic bomb could erode the atmosphere I would ask Oppenheimer and not a politician or sociologist. If we don't agree on the nature of the question it's impossible to have discourse. It seems to me that you are confusing x-risk with societal downsides. I , and they, are talking about extinction risks. Has nothing to do with society. Arms,bioweapons and hacking have nothing to to with sociologists.
- kromem 3y ago
  And how do you think extinction risk for AI can come about? In a self-contained bubble? The idea that AGI poses an extinction risk like the notion of a chain atomic reaction igniting the atmosphere as opposed to posing risk more like multiple nation states pointing nukes at each other in a chain reaction of retaliation is borderline laughable. The only way in which AGI poses risk is in its interactions with other systems and infrastructure, which is where knowledge of how an AGI is built is far less relevant than other sources of knowledge. In an air gapped system no one interacts with AGI existing can and will never bring about any harm at all, and I would seriously doubt any self-respecting scientist would argue differently.
  - arisAlexis 3y ago
    There are extremely many books and articles about the subject.its like me asking " wtf gravity bends time? That's ridiculous lol". But science doesn't work that way. If you want you can read the bibliography. If not, you can argue like this.