hasbroslasher

20 ms·

1. 151.▲
   by hasbroslasher 10y ago

   While I agree with the tenets of this article (global capitalism is bad and needs to be replaced with technological socialism (which, in my view, would ultimately enable the formation of a true Marxist society)), there's some really ba
2. 152.▲
   by hasbroslasher 10y ago

   I don't see what good being pro-human would do in this scenario - either those in the (future) developing world drown as global sea levels rise and traditional agriculture flounders under new climatic conditions (and in greater numbers
3. 153.▲
   by hasbroslasher 10y ago

   Joint probability goes both ways: Ng's prediction that X% of workers will become obsolete is just as unlikely as any future, including Bostroms, as any long string of probable outcomes is highly unlikely.
4. 154.▲
   by hasbroslasher 10y ago

   If I take what your first sentence as true then it follows that no one (LeCun, Ng, Bostrom) is an expert, nor do any of them exceed the corner-store psychic's ability to predict what will come of AI. I don't find that too hard to
5. 155.▲
   by hasbroslasher 10y ago

   It's more like "We're killing our own planet via overpopulation but are more prone to argue about theory on the internet"
6. 156.▲
   by hasbroslasher 10y ago

   Bostrom brings a different set of skills to the table, to ignore his lack of technical understanding is literally to ignore the problem itself: that our technology is so powerful a social force that sometimes even its creators can't fa