2 ms·
Instead of reiterating the contents of the article we are commenting on I will instead point readers to the article itself as it thoroughly dismantles your line
by williamcotton 3y ago
Instead of reiterating the contents of the article we are commenting on I will instead point readers to the article itself as it thoroughly dismantles your line of reasoning.
I make no comment on the dangers of AI.
- f154hfds 3y agoHow does the author dismantle everything? He literally concludes with: > Conclusion: I Genuinely Don’t Know What These People Are Thinking Two things can be true at the same time (and are always true of 100's of aspects of modern life): 1. A devastating possibility is in theory possible, the likelihood of it happening is non-zero. 2. We can't live and make decisions catastrophizing given _we have absolutely no understanding_ about the real likelihood. Is the coffee example a good argument? Of course not! But do we know the likelihood of humanity's ability to create super intelligence AND that that intelligence will cause unimaginable suffering? Uh I don't think so?
- williamcotton 3y agoThe comment I am responding to is a worse version of the coffee argument.