4 ms·

I'd argue AI is incomparably more dangerous than nuclear weaponry, so it makes sense that such propaganda exists. Granted, there are very limited positive aspe

I'd argue AI is incomparably more dangerous than nuclear weaponry, so it makes sense that such propaganda exists. Granted, there are very limited positive aspects of nuclear weapons, while positive potential aspects of AI could arguably outweigh the risks.

kromem 3y ago
It's a bit of a nonsense statement given the degree of nuances. Even with something like nukes, while yes dangerous and terrible weapons, it's arguably quite likely that without them existing we'd have had WWIII by now but for the threat of mutually assured destruction. How 'bad' and 'good' things in narrow scopes actually play out across exponentially larger scopes is almost impossible to predict or qualify. (Also, a lot of the classic threat modeling for AI was extrapolating obsolete anthropological models of past intelligence emergence on precursor species. We just sort of continue carrying forward a number of assumptions we should arguably be much more critical of.)
oglop 3y ago
That you think it is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon is so bonkers to me lol. I’ve heard this sentiment a ton and I flat out don’t get it.
- darkwraithcov 3y ago
  If we don’t solve alignment, then yeah it very well might be Terminator but really dumb and embarrassing while its happening and people deny its happening. I dont know if we are gonna have a robot apocalypse, but if we do I can guarantee its going to be incredibly fucking stupid.
  - oglop 3y ago
    Ok. Pretty sure any apocalypse is stupid lol. Yeah there’s no such thing as the alignment problem. Shrug.
    - darkwraithcov 3y ago
      Knowing how utterly ridiculous things are now and how you can't write fiction as absurd as real life, because people would say its too out there and unrealistic, I think it will be a very special kind of stupid. What do you mean there's no such thing as the alignment problem? People like Rob Miles talk about it all the time. Corrigibility will be a problem, I guarantee it.

kromem 3y ago

It's a bit of a nonsense statement given the degree of nuances. Even with something like nukes, while yes dangerous and terrible weapons, it's arguably quite likely that without them existing we'd have had WWIII by now but for the threat of mutually assured destruction. How 'bad' and 'good' things in narrow scopes actually play out across exponentially larger scopes is almost impossible to predict or qualify. (Also, a lot of the classic threat modeling for AI was extrapolating obsolete anthropological models of past intelligence emergence on precursor species. We just sort of continue carrying forward a number of assumptions we should arguably be much more critical of.)

oglop 3y ago

That you think it is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon is so bonkers to me lol. I’ve heard this sentiment a ton and I flat out don’t get it.

darkwraithcov 3y ago
If we don’t solve alignment, then yeah it very well might be Terminator but really dumb and embarrassing while its happening and people deny its happening. I dont know if we are gonna have a robot apocalypse, but if we do I can guarantee its going to be incredibly fucking stupid.
- oglop 3y ago
  Ok. Pretty sure any apocalypse is stupid lol. Yeah there’s no such thing as the alignment problem. Shrug.
  - darkwraithcov 3y ago
    Knowing how utterly ridiculous things are now and how you can't write fiction as absurd as real life, because people would say its too out there and unrealistic, I think it will be a very special kind of stupid. What do you mean there's no such thing as the alignment problem? People like Rob Miles talk about it all the time. Corrigibility will be a problem, I guarantee it.