3 ms·
> "Yudkowsky's arguments for being worried about AI would also be arguments for being worried about space aliens" doesn't seem to me like much of a counter to t
by jazzyjackson 2y ago
> "Yudkowsky's arguments for being worried about AI would also be arguments for being worried about space aliens" doesn't seem to me like much of a counter to those arguments.
The counterargument was that, having not encountered space aliens, we cannot make scientific inquiries or test our hypotheses, so any claims made about what may happen are religious or merely hypothetical.
Yud is not a scientist and if interacting with academies makes one an academic than Sam Altman must be a head of state.
- gjm11 2y agoI agree that Yudkowsky is neither a scientist nor an academic. (As for being a head of state, I think you're thinking of Elon Musk :-).) Do you think (1) we already know somehow that significantly-smarter-than-human AI is impossible, so there is no need to think about its consequences, or (2) it is irresponsible to think about the consequences of smarter-than-human AI before we actually have it, or (3) there are responsible ways to think about the consequences of smarter-than-human AI before we actually have it but they're importantly different from Yudkowsky's, or (4) some other thing? If 1, how do we know it? If 2, doesn't the opposite also seem irresponsible? If 3, what are they? If 4, what other thing? (I am far from convinced that Yudkowsky is right, but some of the specific things people say about him mystify me.)