4 ms·

Is there any technology you can't say that about?

by cm2187 2y ago

hollerith 2y ago
>>70 percent chance that AI will destroy or catastrophically harm humanity >Is there any technology you can't say that about? Yes: all the technologies humanity has invented except for AI and maybe possibly nuclear bombs. Or am I misinterpreting your question?
- cm2187 2y ago
  Nuclear bombs aren't the only technology that made ww2 so bad. Pretty much every technology has been used for harm one way in another. The question is on balance whether we are better off with or without.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    Since you are bringing up WW2, I'm guessing you do not realize that by "destroy humanity", the OpenAI insider (Kokotajlo) means "reduce the human population to exactly zero". He does not mean, "kill people" or even "kill many people".
    - textninja 2y ago
      He added a lesser option, catastrophically harming humanity, so whatever he meant by the first is immaterial (“there’s a 70% chance of a hurricane or strong winds”). Furthermore, if it wasn’t a high number chosen for dramatic effect the estimated percentage would be completely arbitrary.
      - hollerith 2y ago
        I disagree that 70% was chosen for dramatic effect.
        textninja 2y ago
        No, you’re right, it was chosen because “trust me bro”. Look, it may well be something he believes, and he’s free to prognosticate (or market) however he likes, but I see absolutely nothing to support the number outside of his own opinion. Besides, there’s no time limit on p(doom), so it’s completely unfalsifiable (“on a long enough timescale…”), and it’s about the destruction of humanity which means it’s unprovable as well. That, in my view, makes his 70% guess a sensational statement lacking scientific merit.
- textninja 2y ago
  No, the number is made up and the facts don’t matter so the statement can easily be reimagined as an ad lib. > There’s a [arbitrary number] percent chance that [technology] will destroy or catastrophically harm humanity Try these: social media, the Internet, the large hadron collider, Starlink, Neuralink, iPhones, iDrones, quantum computers, regular computers, the 2038 bug, the Y2K bug, electric cars, gasoline cars, the great firewall of China, the not so great firewalls of asbestos, mRNA technology, gain of function research, nuclear bombs, nuclear energy, paper clip manufacturers, scissors. I’m not saying it’s true that these have a 70 percent chance of destroying or catastrophically harming humanity, but couldn’t you make the argument?
defrost 2y ago
Silly string and aglets seem safe for now.

Is there any technology you can't say that about?

by cm2187 2y ago

Is there any technology you can't say that about?

>>70 percent chance that AI will destroy or catastrophically harm humanity >Is there any technology you can't say that about? Yes: all the technologies humanity has invented except for AI and maybe possibly nuclear bombs. Or am I misinterpreting your question?

cm2187 2y ago
Nuclear bombs aren't the only technology that made ww2 so bad. Pretty much every technology has been used for harm one way in another. The question is on balance whether we are better off with or without.
- hollerith 2y ago
  Since you are bringing up WW2, I'm guessing you do not realize that by "destroy humanity", the OpenAI insider (Kokotajlo) means "reduce the human population to exactly zero". He does not mean, "kill people" or even "kill many people".
  - textninja 2y ago
    He added a lesser option, catastrophically harming humanity, so whatever he meant by the first is immaterial (“there’s a 70% chance of a hurricane or strong winds”). Furthermore, if it wasn’t a high number chosen for dramatic effect the estimated percentage would be completely arbitrary.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      I disagree that 70% was chosen for dramatic effect.
      - textninja 2y ago
        No, you’re right, it was chosen because “trust me bro”. Look, it may well be something he believes, and he’s free to prognosticate (or market) however he likes, but I see absolutely nothing to support the number outside of his own opinion. Besides, there’s no time limit on p(doom), so it’s completely unfalsifiable (“on a long enough timescale…”), and it’s about the destruction of humanity which means it’s unprovable as well. That, in my view, makes his 70% guess a sensational statement lacking scientific merit.
textninja 2y ago
No, the number is made up and the facts don’t matter so the statement can easily be reimagined as an ad lib. > There’s a [arbitrary number] percent chance that [technology] will destroy or catastrophically harm humanity Try these: social media, the Internet, the large hadron collider, Starlink, Neuralink, iPhones, iDrones, quantum computers, regular computers, the 2038 bug, the Y2K bug, electric cars, gasoline cars, the great firewall of China, the not so great firewalls of asbestos, mRNA technology, gain of function research, nuclear bombs, nuclear energy, paper clip manufacturers, scissors. I’m not saying it’s true that these have a 70 percent chance of destroying or catastrophically harming humanity, but couldn’t you make the argument?

defrost 2y ago

Silly string and aglets seem safe for now.