= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
loqi comments on Let's reimplement EURISKO! - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (151)
Status quo bias, anyone?
I presently believe, not without justification, that we are headed for extinction-level disaster as things are; and that not populating the planet with the highest achievable intelligence is in itself an immediate existential risk. In fact, our current existence may well be looked back on as an unthinkably horrifying disaster by a superintelligent race (I'm thinking of Yudkowsky's Super-Happies.)
Since your justification is omitted here, I'll go ahead and suspect it's at least as improbable as this one. The question isn't simply "do we need better technology to mitigate existential risk", it's "are the odds that technological suppression due to friendliness concerns wipes us out greater than the corresponding AGI risk".
If you assume friendliness is not a problem, AI is obviously a beneficial development. Is that really the major concern here? All this talk of the benefits of scientific and technological progress seems wasted. Take friendliness out of the picture, I doubt many here would disagree with the general point that progress mitigates long-term risk.
So please, be more specific. The argument "lack of progress contributes to existential risk" contains no new information. Either tell us why this risk is far greater than we suspect, or why AGI is less risky than we suspect.