3 ms·
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 sociol
by 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 agoAnd 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 agoThere 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.