= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
snarles comments on Be a Visiting Fellow at the Singularity Institute - 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 (156)
"You might want to go back to basics and think about how politics, public opinion and the media operate, for example that they had little opinion on the hugely important probabilistic revolution in AI over the last 15 years, but spilled loads of ink over stem cells."
And why is that?
But stem cell research is much more prominent in that it is producing notable direct applications or very close to it. It also isn't just a yuck factor (although that's certainly one part), in many different moral systems, stem cells research produced serious moral qualms. AI may very well trigger some similar issues if it becomes more viable.
Yes, but these are precisely the dangers humans should certainly not worry about to begin with.
"The ideal dangerous technology for people to not give a shit about banning would involve a theoretical threat which is hard to understand"
I don't think The Terminator was hard to understand. The second you get some credible people saying that AI is a threat, the media reaction is going to be overexcessive, as it always is.
Thanks; I was mistaken. Would you say, then, that mainstream scientists are similarly irrational? (The main comparison I have in mind throughout this section, by the way, is global warming.)
There may be an issue here about what we define as AI. For example, I would not see what Google does as AI but rather as harvesting human intelligence. The lines here may be blurry are hard to define.
You make a good point about older taboos.
Could someone explain why this comment got modded down? I don't see any errors in reasoning or other issues. (Was the content level too low for the desired signal/noise ratio?)
Do you have a citation for Google using machine learning in any substantial scale? The most basic of the Google algorithms is PageRank which isn't a machine learning algorithm by most definitions of that term.