3 ms·
That assumes you believe his claims of disaster. We already have been through this with the printing press, telecommunications, computers and the internet. The
by ryao 2y ago
That assumes you believe his claims of disaster. We already have been through this with the printing press, telecommunications, computers and the internet. The claims of disaster are overrated.
- habosa 2y agoWhat I was trying to say is the thing that makes him dangerous is that he believes disaster is possible and is still heading towards that possibility with maximum velocity. That makes him one of the few people alive who, in their own estimation, has a real chance to destroy the world as we know it. And if that doesn’t humble you (he’s anything but humble) or make you change course then you’re a villain in my book.
- llamaimperative 2y agoYou conveniently left out nuclear weapons and bioweapons, both of which are actually capable of destroying the world and both of which are very, very tightly controlled accordingly. It's pretty obvious that a technology's capacity for good rises in lockstep with its capacity for evil. Considering that every technology is just a manifestation of intelligence, then AI would trend toward infinite capacity for good as it develops[1], therefore AI's capacity for evil is... minimal? 1: I remain agnostic as to where exactly we are on that curve and whether transformers will get us much further up it
- ryao 2y agoA collection of matrix weights is not an weapon. Those have nothing in common.
- llamaimperative 2y agoNeither is a snippet of genetic code nor a chunk of uranium...