3 ms·
Mostly the people dismissing the x-risk concern do so on the grounds that what is being sold is not and cannot become smart in the way it's being sold by x-risk
by throwanem 2y ago
Mostly the people dismissing the x-risk concern do so on the grounds that what is being sold is not and cannot become smart in the way it's being sold by x-risk stans as being able to, which is true. If you want to argue the contrary case, starting from the actual point of disagreement is probably a better play, because the argument you've actually made here constitutes no answer.
- humansareok1 2y ago>what is being sold is not and cannot become smart in the way it's being sold by x-risk stans Do you have actual evidence for this astonishing take? Because I'm sure the entire field would be entranced by your genius here. It's actually completely UN-clear what the limits to LLMs are and it's completely ridiculous to say otherwise. >starting from the actual point of disagreement is probably a better play Fundamentally most e/accs or other anti-doom stans believe that AGI/ASI are actually impossible, that nothing can be smarter than humans and that human brains constitute special magic meat. Almost all of their other wrong beliefs stem from those.
- throwanem 2y agoIf the only way you can see it is on the spectrum of x-risk maximalist to e/acc, there's no point in us trying to have a conversation here. The implicit status game is meaningless to me and I can't see how any of this helps better reflect reality.
- humansareok1 2y agoHow is this a spectrum. There is indeed a spectrum of p(doom)s which represent meaningful positions about risk and then there's e/acc's, a group of misanthropic weirdos who are actively interested in pursuing the extinction of our species. If you can't see the difference then there is indeed nothing to discuss.
- throwanem 2y agoI see a difference, but only one of degree. Both tendencies are motivated by the same postulates, which I find extremely silly.