4 ms·

>At the risk of falling into "ad hominem" territory, ... I wouldn't worry, you and the parent already have solid footing in "appeal to authority" territory.

by rl3 12y ago

AndrewKemendo 12y ago
The problem with this debate currently is that none of the people talking about it, Altman, Musk, Hawking (like the climate debate) etc... are anything near competent to be talking about it, so they must reference something implicitly like Bostrom. They aren't making individually cogent thought out and articulated arguments, they are all just saying "LOUD NOISES, this is a scary thing that someone said could be bad, therefore I think it's a scary thing." If they could give some good timelines, facts and steps toward AGI then we could debate that on merits. As it is no one is doing that, the whole thing is an appeal to authority from the beginning. So yes, the sources for these people need to be inspected further.
- rl3 12y ago
  It is arrogant to make sweeping statements wherein one presumes to be an arbiter of competence. If you think their arguments aren't sufficiently cogent or articulated, then suggest a counterargument rather than dismissing them on the basis of something other than their words. Unlike climatology, superintelligence is not yet an established scientific field. It does not currently exist to study. There are no experts. There is no consensus to be had. Everyone is technically unqualified to speak on the subject. Artificial intelligence experts today may be able to render guesses more accurate than most as to the arrival of superintelligence via the AGI path. However, this does not confer upon them any sort of authoritative high ground on the matter, nor does it place the issue squarely in their domain. Doing so would be analogous to trusting a group of explosives experts circa 1944 in saying that we have nothing to fear from atomic weapons, because such devices are to utilize conventional explosive mechanisms in their operation.
  - AndrewKemendo 12y ago
    Your post says too much, basically: "Nobody is an expert therefore everyone can add to the debate." Sorry, not the case. There are actually people who are studying AGI full time and have made it their life work, regardless of whether you know about it or not. Unlike climatology, superintelligence is not yet an established scientific field. It does not currently exist to study. There are no experts. There is no consensus to be had. Everyone is technically unqualified to speak on the subject. How do you figure? There are AGI journals[1], conferences[2], speaker circuits, hackathons etc...So I think you just don't know about them. Doing so would be analogous to trusting a group of explosives experts circa 1944 in saying that we have nothing to fear from atomic weapons, because such devices are to utilize conventional explosive mechanisms in their operation. This is a great analogy and I often make the comparison between nuclear technologies (power, radiometry, weapons) to AGI because of scope and potential. The problem however with your analogy is that the current experts aren't analogous to explosives experts, they are more analogous to Szilárd/Einstein. This is why I advocate for an AGI Manhattan project. We need about between 5-10 years of the smartest people alive working on building it. Not thinking about it, building towards it. [1]http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jagi http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jagi [2]http://agi-conf.org/ http://agi-conf.org/
    - rl3 12y ago
      Close, but a more accurate generalization might read: "Nobody is an expert. Therefore everyone can add to the debate, provided their argument has merit." >There are actually people who are studying AGI full time and have made it their life work, regardless of whether you know about it or not. You mean like the people at MIRI? In a previous post, you suggest that most of them don't deserve any play at all on the topic. >How do you figure? There are AGI journals[1], conferences[2], speaker circuits, hackathons etc...So I think you just don't know about them. Oh but I do, and my statement still stands regardless. AGI does not yet exist. The field itself is in its infancy, and hardly established relative to other fields. As such, there are no experts, nor any consensus, at least not in any authoritative sense. If you insist upon dismissing the input of select people entirely, then the bar for such a decision should be that they are authoritatively incorrect, or that they are authoritatively unqualified to speak. The problem is that there is nothing to derive such authority from yet, precisely because the field is in its infancy. >The problem however with your analogy is that the current experts aren't analogous to explosives experts, they are more analogous to Szilárd/Einstein. Unlike atomic weapons prior to the first test shot (or even prior to Fermi's Chicago Pile-1 experiment), AGI does not yet have a solid theoretical underpinning, let alone a proof of concept. Perhaps the best analogy lies somewhere in between our interpretations. >This is why I advocate for an AGI Manhattan project. Funny enough we're in total agreement here. I was even advocating for the same thing via another post in this thread. >Not thinking about it, building towards it. There is the question of timing. If the Manhattan Project itself was initiated earlier than it had been, there may not have been enough time for the aforementioned theoretical underpinnings to have been reasoned about to the level they were.

>At the risk of falling into "ad hominem" territory, ... I wouldn't worry, you and the parent already have solid footing in "appeal to authority" territory.

by rl3 12y ago

>At the risk of falling into "ad hominem" territory, ... I wouldn't worry, you and the parent already have solid footing in "appeal to authority" territory.

AndrewKemendo 12y ago

The problem with this debate currently is that none of the people talking about it, Altman, Musk, Hawking (like the climate debate) etc... are anything near competent to be talking about it, so they must reference something implicitly like Bostrom. They aren't making individually cogent thought out and articulated arguments, they are all just saying "LOUD NOISES, this is a scary thing that someone said could be bad, therefore I think it's a scary thing." If they could give some good timelines, facts and steps toward AGI then we could debate that on merits. As it is no one is doing that, the whole thing is an appeal to authority from the beginning. So yes, the sources for these people need to be inspected further.

rl3 12y ago
It is arrogant to make sweeping statements wherein one presumes to be an arbiter of competence. If you think their arguments aren't sufficiently cogent or articulated, then suggest a counterargument rather than dismissing them on the basis of something other than their words. Unlike climatology, superintelligence is not yet an established scientific field. It does not currently exist to study. There are no experts. There is no consensus to be had. Everyone is technically unqualified to speak on the subject. Artificial intelligence experts today may be able to render guesses more accurate than most as to the arrival of superintelligence via the AGI path. However, this does not confer upon them any sort of authoritative high ground on the matter, nor does it place the issue squarely in their domain. Doing so would be analogous to trusting a group of explosives experts circa 1944 in saying that we have nothing to fear from atomic weapons, because such devices are to utilize conventional explosive mechanisms in their operation.
- AndrewKemendo 12y ago
  Your post says too much, basically: "Nobody is an expert therefore everyone can add to the debate." Sorry, not the case. There are actually people who are studying AGI full time and have made it their life work, regardless of whether you know about it or not. Unlike climatology, superintelligence is not yet an established scientific field. It does not currently exist to study. There are no experts. There is no consensus to be had. Everyone is technically unqualified to speak on the subject. How do you figure? There are AGI journals[1], conferences[2], speaker circuits, hackathons etc...So I think you just don't know about them. Doing so would be analogous to trusting a group of explosives experts circa 1944 in saying that we have nothing to fear from atomic weapons, because such devices are to utilize conventional explosive mechanisms in their operation. This is a great analogy and I often make the comparison between nuclear technologies (power, radiometry, weapons) to AGI because of scope and potential. The problem however with your analogy is that the current experts aren't analogous to explosives experts, they are more analogous to Szilárd/Einstein. This is why I advocate for an AGI Manhattan project. We need about between 5-10 years of the smartest people alive working on building it. Not thinking about it, building towards it. [1]http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jagi http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jagi [2]http://agi-conf.org/ http://agi-conf.org/
  - rl3 12y ago
    Close, but a more accurate generalization might read: "Nobody is an expert. Therefore everyone can add to the debate, provided their argument has merit." >There are actually people who are studying AGI full time and have made it their life work, regardless of whether you know about it or not. You mean like the people at MIRI? In a previous post, you suggest that most of them don't deserve any play at all on the topic. >How do you figure? There are AGI journals[1], conferences[2], speaker circuits, hackathons etc...So I think you just don't know about them. Oh but I do, and my statement still stands regardless. AGI does not yet exist. The field itself is in its infancy, and hardly established relative to other fields. As such, there are no experts, nor any consensus, at least not in any authoritative sense. If you insist upon dismissing the input of select people entirely, then the bar for such a decision should be that they are authoritatively incorrect, or that they are authoritatively unqualified to speak. The problem is that there is nothing to derive such authority from yet, precisely because the field is in its infancy. >The problem however with your analogy is that the current experts aren't analogous to explosives experts, they are more analogous to Szilárd/Einstein. Unlike atomic weapons prior to the first test shot (or even prior to Fermi's Chicago Pile-1 experiment), AGI does not yet have a solid theoretical underpinning, let alone a proof of concept. Perhaps the best analogy lies somewhere in between our interpretations. >This is why I advocate for an AGI Manhattan project. Funny enough we're in total agreement here. I was even advocating for the same thing via another post in this thread. >Not thinking about it, building towards it. There is the question of timing. If the Manhattan Project itself was initiated earlier than it had been, there may not have been enough time for the aforementioned theoretical underpinnings to have been reasoned about to the level they were.