3 ms·
There seem to be two extraordinary claims which lack evidence: a) 10% existential risk b) 0% existential risk
by jacobgold 21d ago
There seem to be two extraordinary claims which lack evidence:
a) 10% existential risk
b) 0% existential risk
- adithyareddy 21d ago(a) is an extraordinary claim, (b) is not an extraordinary claim.
- jacobgold 21d agoThere are very clear and plausible pathways from AI to human extinction level events, regardless of how small you think the probability is. So yes, it very obviously is an extraordinary claim to say there is 0% existential risk.
- deleted 21d ago[deleted]
- duhhhhh1212 21d agoGood god. You are burden shifting. a) big claim no evidence. b). says a has no evidence; therefore, I will continue to not let fear manipulate me into believing a claim without evidence. I have a bridge to sell to anyone who believes a big claim without evidence.
- jacobgold 21d agoB is not a claim that A has no evidence, that's just confused. It's an independent claim that there is 0% risk.
- adithyareddy 21d agoThere are no clear and plausible pathways to human extinction level events that AI makes worse or more likely in any way. It is obviously not an extraordinary claim at all.
- goatlover 21d agoWhat's the evidence for there being an existential risk? We are provided scenarios which read like science fiction about RSI and ASI right around the corner, resulting in magic sounding technology that can do anything the person making the claim wants it to do, because it can just make itself smart enough in a short amount of time. But the person making the claim has to actually show how such a thing is possible in the real world, not just a story.
- jacobgold 21d agoThe clear and predictable power of AI is the evidence for existential risk. Even if we don't get RSI or ASI, there's a risk we'll automate our world, then it'll break and we'll starve, etc.
- worik 21d ago> The clear and predictable power of AI is the evidence for existential risk * The "predictable power of AI" is very advanced predictive text. What a lot you can do with that, and there are clear limits. * AI has no intent. The greedheads who find themselves in these positions of power have clear intent (often but not always bordering on and actively becoming misanthropic) put their intentions on AI - hence to doom mongering * Who will starve with the failure of agriculture? A few, a lot, but not everybody. We are good at this - have been doing it a lot longer than computing or science