adamisom

9 ms·

61.
by adamisom 3y ago
Hmm, if it's spreading so much, maybe it's not a cult? Even if you still have the cynical perspective of thinking it's all wrong--Christianity took over and nobody calls it a cult anymore. At least give it the dignity of &#x2
62.
by adamisom 3y ago
Yudkowsky sticks out because he's weird and his position extreme, but by no means is his p(doom) representative of the increasingly-many worried researchers. I find it tricky to think about cases like Yudkowsky (full disclosure I used
63.
by adamisom 3y ago
It's just shorthand for something like "what people (show they) want". In the past, college-degree holders were scarce, so a history degree had "economic" value. It's not that the past valued the humanities mor
64.
by adamisom 3y ago
Yep, for example: it'll be better for a lot of agriculture - unexpected indeed
65.
by adamisom 3y ago
> We do not even have a consensus around a working definition of "intelligence" I’m sorry but if you really think this is relevant, you just aren’t paying attention. This is my number one giveaway sign that someone just doesn’t
66.
by adamisom 3y ago
Yeah, 'tabooing' the word intelligence could help correct hype, the problem is it could over correct: just because you decide to taboo the word, doesn't mean that current-or-future AI isn't "intelligent". Word
67.
by adamisom 3y ago
A disturbing extension of that is if there's some M>N such that only some humans possess M (and others N). I think this must be so (I have a Down's-syndrome relative), the disturbing question is if there's a distribution
68.
by adamisom 3y ago
Ha, for me I'd invert your last sentence: I'm skeptical of being sure AI won't be sentient for the same reason.
69.
by adamisom 3y ago
We don’t all forget about incentives people might have in saying something; but we also don’t all assume that the first convenient explanation is adequate. Numbers 1-4 obviously don’t have enormous recent progress nor the funding and mindsh
70.
by adamisom 3y ago
Of course he was lucky, you should expect that in general for well-known people because selection pressures that led you to hear of them, vs not hear of them, are likely to involve luck. That is not at all a slam dunk argument. It’s barely
71.
by adamisom 3y ago
To me this comment means that, if people care about the results of "intelligence", then probably future computers will "do intelligence" to achieve that, just as calculators actually do do arithmetic.
72.
by adamisom 3y ago
Please don't "gotcha". This type of critique is lazy and flattens the interesting points raised in the parent. And: sometimes people are projecting, other times they're not.
73.
by adamisom 4y ago
And what if Ng or LeCun had signed it, would it still be beneath dignity of a response—or are Bengio and Russell’s names not big enough?
74.
by adamisom 4y ago
after all, 15 year old girls’ top concern is how the 2008 crisis hit them
75.
by adamisom 4y ago
>> Us humans are capable of self-improvement > No, you're capable of learning things. You can't do brain surgery on yourself What principle do you have for defining self-improvement the way that you do? Do you regard all
76.
by adamisom 4y ago
.. what? Us humans are capable of self-improvement, but we’re also a kludge of biases through which reason has miraculously found a tiny foothold. We’re talking about a potential intelligence with none of our hardware limitations or baggage
77.
by adamisom 4y ago
It's not a false equivalency with respect to the question of overriding concern, which is existential safety. Suppose nukes somehow also provided nuclear power. Then, you could say the exact same thing you're saying now... but in
78.
by adamisom 4y ago
Nah man, it’s just math! Whereas we have souls … or something.
79.
by adamisom 4y ago
The S&P 500 companies in particular should pivot to just buying S&P 500 stocks.
80.
by adamisom 4y ago
Agree but with major caveat that students in those majors may be actually improving those skills less than you may be assuming. It’s generally true of most colleges and students that they seem to learn strikingly little as measured by pre&#
81.
by adamisom 4y ago
import { wellIsIt } from ‘isThisPackageNecessary’;
82.
by adamisom 4y ago
is that odd?
83.
by adamisom 4y ago
how synergistic
84.
by adamisom 4y ago
Well, I hope it’s not possible !
85.
by adamisom 4y ago
I'm only addressing a fraction of your many excellent points, but: this is actually why uncontrolled AGI is so spooky. It's the prospect of a future where space gets colonized-or whatever crazy goal(s)-but there's "nob
86.
by adamisom 4y ago
That's a good point. At the same time, more chances (to discover an electric life) is better. But your point really matters because however long you live, youth will only be a fraction of that (and I do expect that one's relat
87.
by adamisom 4y ago
I think people here are disprortionately conscious , which leads to greater awareness that terrible things are terrible.
88.
by adamisom 4y ago
Indeed: the original comment was not at all implying anything special about FTT. Rather that, perhaps whether we like it or not, knowledge is not very flat; you really should honor (as in: recognize and treat appropriately-nothing magical o
89.
by adamisom 4y ago
Well, I suspect that’s most people. So we’d better still call them students.
90.
by adamisom 4y ago
I think it’s mainly that STEM majors are smarter, and thinking is hard slash unmotivating. Of course any non-STEM field has geniuses, but our impressions—like the parent’s—are formed from averages, and STEM majors are smarter on avg.

More ›