3 ms·
Do you think the people worried about nuclear weapons at the time the first atom was split had evidence for their claims or no?
by ethanbond 3y ago
Do you think the people worried about nuclear weapons at the time the first atom was split had evidence for their claims or no?
- CamperBob2 3y agoThere has got to be a corollary to Godwin's Law here somewhere. "Any argument about AI will inevitably end up with a comparison to nuclear weapons. The conversation will go south from there," or some such.
- ethanbond 3y agoI am asking a legitimate question about what constitutes evidence to the person I'm speaking with. Some people think expecting scale-up is meaningful, and some people don't.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nradov 3y agoYes, that's exactly my point! Back in 1945, nuclear physics was a well established science with actual experimental results. By contrast, 100% of the people making wild claims about AI risks are worthless scammers and grifters with no scientific backing. A total clown show.
- ethanbond 3y agoBut Einstein and Szilard wrote their letter to Eisenhower in 1939, well before any chain reaction had been achieved. Did that constitute a baseless concern? > 100% of the people making wild claims about AI risks are worthless scammers and grifters with no scientific backing. I mean this is demonstrably untrue: Sutskever, Suleyman, Hinton, Russell to name a few.