4 ms·

We will not know if something is an existential threat until we can extrapolate on at least some data that is relevant. Feeling uncomfortable with this, will n

by i5heu 3y ago

We will not know if something is an existential threat until we can extrapolate on at least some data that is relevant. Feeling uncomfortable with this, will not change this sad reality.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
Given that you don't think the CEO of Anthropic is qualified to comment on this matter, what kind of "data that is relevant" do you imagine we might be able to have, prior to an AGI existing? I am indeed uncomfortable with someone saying that we can't worry about a gas leak until after someone strikes a match and notices an explosion or the lack thereof. If the sad reality is that we can't detect the gas leak any other way, I would argue that the precautionary principle suggests we ban the striking of matches until such sensors have been developed. But here we are in a room of people grinding up saltpetre with their mortars and pestles.
- i5heu 3y ago
  I really wonder why there is such a fixation with these CEOs. I have proven to you logically that they cannot have more knowledge then anyone else, but you continue to present their authority as knowledge. Pls prove to me that they know more about the effects of AGI on humanity or that they have some magical knowledge we normal ppl are unable to comprehend. If you cannot do this, then why are you bringing up these ppl?
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    I wasn't the one who brought that person up. I only kept with that example because you didn't answer my question when I asked you what would qualify someone to have an opinion, or what evidence you imagined could exist, and I didn't want to put words in your mouth by assuming that you also think that eg. Yoshua Bengio or Geoff Hinton or Max Tegmark (or take your pick of anybody) don't have informed opinions either. Or that they have well-reasoned arguments, rather than authoritative opinions, if you think that reason is applicable. I'm only asking for a standard that falls slightly short of "already having built Schrodinger's doomsday weapon and observed whether humanity dies as a result". You can set the bar wherever else you like, please!
  - Gud 3y ago
    This is not about “having knowledge “, but about being able to anticipate future problems. Considering how rapidly the technology is developing, and considering how clearly a threat a superior intelligence will be to the human race, it is absolutely the time to have this discussion NOW
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > I have proven to you logically that they cannot have more knowledge then anyone else, but you continue to present their authority as knowledge. You've asserted it, not proven it. Given their entire research field is "how to make the thing", it's a fair bet that they know more than me — even if what they know is, to paraphrase Thomas Edison, "1000 ways to not make an AGI", that's still more than me, and I follow some of the research and read some of the papers.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      > You've asserted it, not proven it. Correct, and this (your counterpart's unrealized because it is the normal, proper way to think error) is what worries me... I think once again (as with affordable vehicles powered by fossil fuels) humans may be once again walking blindly and confidently into a situation where we've over invested in certain competencies to the detriment of others, increasing the already dangerous imbalance that exists between power and wisdom.

by i5heu 3y ago

We will not know if something is an existential threat until we can extrapolate on at least some data that is relevant. Feeling uncomfortable with this, will not change this sad reality.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago

Given that you don't think the CEO of Anthropic is qualified to comment on this matter, what kind of "data that is relevant" do you imagine we might be able to have, prior to an AGI existing? I am indeed uncomfortable with someone saying that we can't worry about a gas leak until after someone strikes a match and notices an explosion or the lack thereof. If the sad reality is that we can't detect the gas leak any other way, I would argue that the precautionary principle suggests we ban the striking of matches until such sensors have been developed. But here we are in a room of people grinding up saltpetre with their mortars and pestles.

i5heu 3y ago
I really wonder why there is such a fixation with these CEOs. I have proven to you logically that they cannot have more knowledge then anyone else, but you continue to present their authority as knowledge. Pls prove to me that they know more about the effects of AGI on humanity or that they have some magical knowledge we normal ppl are unable to comprehend. If you cannot do this, then why are you bringing up these ppl?
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  I wasn't the one who brought that person up. I only kept with that example because you didn't answer my question when I asked you what would qualify someone to have an opinion, or what evidence you imagined could exist, and I didn't want to put words in your mouth by assuming that you also think that eg. Yoshua Bengio or Geoff Hinton or Max Tegmark (or take your pick of anybody) don't have informed opinions either. Or that they have well-reasoned arguments, rather than authoritative opinions, if you think that reason is applicable. I'm only asking for a standard that falls slightly short of "already having built Schrodinger's doomsday weapon and observed whether humanity dies as a result". You can set the bar wherever else you like, please!
- Gud 3y ago
  This is not about “having knowledge “, but about being able to anticipate future problems. Considering how rapidly the technology is developing, and considering how clearly a threat a superior intelligence will be to the human race, it is absolutely the time to have this discussion NOW
- ben_w 3y ago
  > I have proven to you logically that they cannot have more knowledge then anyone else, but you continue to present their authority as knowledge. You've asserted it, not proven it. Given their entire research field is "how to make the thing", it's a fair bet that they know more than me — even if what they know is, to paraphrase Thomas Edison, "1000 ways to not make an AGI", that's still more than me, and I follow some of the research and read some of the papers.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > You've asserted it, not proven it. Correct, and this (your counterpart's unrealized because it is the normal, proper way to think error) is what worries me... I think once again (as with affordable vehicles powered by fossil fuels) humans may be once again walking blindly and confidently into a situation where we've over invested in certain competencies to the detriment of others, increasing the already dangerous imbalance that exists between power and wisdom.