4 ms·
Well, color me disappointed. I think there are many arguments against the viewpoints of MIRI and Bostrom, both discrediting the perceived risk of super-intellig
by maaku 12y ago
Well, color me disappointed. I think there are many arguments against the viewpoints of MIRI and Bostrom, both discrediting the perceived risk of super-intelligences and the the idea that we could build a "provably friendly" alternative.
But I don't think it's at all a fair criticism to say that you need a technical roadmap to engage in that debate. I would rather say that they need to be willing to discuss specific architectural details in order to even sit at the table, sure. The field of "AI safety" needs more engineering and less philosophy. But that doesn't require unity around a single roadmap, or any concept of deliverable dates.
- AndrewKemendo 12y agoI would rather say that they need to be willing to discuss specific architectural details in order to even sit at the table, sure. We are in violent agreement then. When I say roadmap I certainly don't intend to mean that each step needs to be perfectly detailed. The field of "AI safety" needs more engineering and less philosophy. But that doesn't require unity around a single roadmap, or any concept of deliverable dates. Exactly exactly and well said! That is 100% the point. Mind meld complete.
- maaku 12y agoAwesome :)
- rl3 12y ago>The field of "AI safety" needs more engineering and less philosophy. An alternate phrasing might state that it needs more philosophy and an even greater amount of engineering. If the field is in its infancy from a technical standpoint, then it probably is from a philosophical one as well.
- maaku 12y agoNo the philosophical musings have proven to be worse than a distraction IMHO.